|
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 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. 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" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 5:12 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 6:49 PM: snip Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he was waiting? ===================== Read the sites fool. As you know, patient info is not released. There are stories about health care issues in the media all the time. Something as serious as someone dying while waiting for care would definitely make the front page. ================== It has before fool. Never. Prove it. ======================= Yes, fool. Try some researchof you own. You made the claim. I've done it. It hasn't happened, save for your weasel imagination. =================================== OK If you have done the research, then you should be able to refute the facts, eh liar? Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? Still afraid to read the facts, liar? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 5:15 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snipsss... My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom. Can I please try again? Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? If you will excuse and accept the following babble? I deleted it. ============== Of course you did. You don't like the truth, it hurts too much, right? Has he proven it? ================= Yes... For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while waiting for health care, and if the health care system had not responded so slowly, she'd still be alive?" That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and died doesn't mean that caused the death. Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the waiting that caused them to die. ================== ROTFLMAO Waiting doesn't kill tghem fool! The desease is what kills them. Sometimes because they don't get the treatment they need. You've provided no evidence of this. -================= Yes, I have, many times now. that you are too afraid to read facts is your problem. liar. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:38 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Could you give me a short list so that I can understand what type of communities you are speaking of? Thanks, TnT Howsabout the Amish? Can you certify that there are no guns in Amish communities? Can you prevent me from taking a gun into an Amish community? No, but as I understand the Amish would rather throw themselves in front of your bullets until you run out of ammo than become a gun culture themselves. You merely demonstrate how little you understand, about the Amish or guns. And frankly I don't think a lot of Amish are getting shot - by internal shooters or external shooters. Cites? They aren't real big on tooting their own horn, I can't find much, just stuff like http://www.manythings.org/voa/00/001002tia_t.htm which I would not offer as evidence of anything. But I don't want to seem as though I was offering myself as an expert on the Amish, it was intended as humorous since I assumed everyone would share a knowledge of the stereotype of the Amish as a non-violent community. |
KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snipsss... My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom. Can I please try again? Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? If you will excuse and accept the following babble? I deleted it. Has he proven it? Yes, he provided evidence, and there was other evidence available! For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while waiting for health care, and if the health care system had not responded so slowly, she'd still be alive?" Yes, read about Diane Gorsuch below! That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and died doesn't mean that caused the death. He never claimed that! If so show me Date and Time of rick's post! I am to tired to search any longer myself, having read and reread probably 100 less than inspiring epistles by you two. Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? Yes, ask and answered previously and below! Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the waiting that caused them to die. Now you are changing the question, rick never claimed this. He claimed that people died while their name was on a waiting list, waiting for a test or procedure that could have saved their life. They still might have lost their life, even if they had the procedure, because these were seriously ill individuals with life threatening illness, usually cardiac or ontology, but that is a different issue entirely! Before your deleted it, did you read it? Your promise was posted as follows; Feb 22, 7:03 am "Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology." Feb 22, 2:02 pm "Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology." 1) http://www.cp.org/english/online/ful...D052306AU.html 2) http://canada.medbroadcast.com/healt...&news_ id=755 3) http://www.manpc.mb.ca/03042003.htm 4) http://chealth.canoe.ca/health_news_...1&news_id=8195 The case of Diane Gorsuch a Canadian, provided an example of a person dying while on a wait list, waiting for a life saving operation that could have saved her life if administered in a timely fashion, but after two years of waiting, she died. Evidently the life saving operation was cancelled and rescheduled a number of times. Her death would have been handled by a coroner, and in addition to her death, two other deaths were accounted for at the same time that was the result of being on a wait list for and untimely period. These cases resulted in much public and media outcry, and the eventual revamping of the Ontario Medical system, and in particular the management of those on wait lists. 5) In addition, 11 people died according to the following link! http://www.manpc.mb.ca/02092004.htm The review of the cardiac care program, done by Edmonton heart surgeon Dr. Arvind Koshal was prompted after 11 people died while waiting for cardiac surgery in the province 6) In addition, 50 people died according to the following link out of 8000 in the study group. This report is much more statistical for those so inclined (frtwz). http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/11/1233 The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study In this prospective registry of over 8000 patients referred for cardiac catheterization in 1998-2000 in the Central-South Region of Ontario, the median waiting time was 6 days for inpatients and 60 days for outpatients. Only 37% of patients received the procedure within the time requested by the referring physician. The overall incidence of major cardiac events was 1.4%, with 50 deaths during a median wait of 27 days. In a retrospective study of 871 patients in Manitoba referred for cardiac catheterization in 1981-1982, the incidence rates of cardiac arrest, acute MI, death and emergency admission during a mean waiting time of 4.2 weeks were 0.5%, 0.9%, 0.4%, and 3.7% respectively KMAN, I never saw a post by rick saying that people are dying because the wait list/line some how rises up and kills them, or bores them to death, or however else a person would become a mortality statistic because their name is on the wait list/line which caused the death. I have seen where rick said that people in Canada have died while their name is on the wait list for a particular test or procedure. The key words being "because, and while." You only in this prior post have expanded your question to include the "because" part of the statement, unless you can show me date and time of a previous post by you where you clearly use the word because, in the context of your claim that people are not dying because their name is on a wait list/line! In your request to me previously when you ask me to vote, you also requested me to certify whether rick had, or had not supported his claim that people were dying while on the wait list/lines. I have provided the above links, and the links I posted previously. Unless you were playing sematical games with list/line and because/while, then I believe you owe rick a public apology, as well as the rest of us whose time you have been twiddling with. If you are unable to suck up and apologize, then you are the one playing nutty weasel, and I leave you to play in the sandbox with yourself, unless rick chooses to come torment you longer. In that case, you deserve everything he dishes out. In addition I would have to seriously determine to consider your future posts as trash, and not worth the time to entertain anything you have to say. He has you in Check, you can't Castle, since you have moved your Rooks, your out of pawns, Bishops, Knights, Queen, and it is Checkmate time! I have played enough Chess to know the feeling, but you are better to go down in dignity, and play again, than to cheat, and noone will play with you after that! TnT |
"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. |
in article 1109720434.03b3168c32f67714ee50a03e0f85d73b@terane ws, Nisarel at
wrote on 3/1/05 6:40 PM: "BCITORGB" wrote: Nisarel says: ================ Fraser Institute: a far-right wing ideological think tank that is not known for unbiased research. =============== This was pointed out much earlier in this thread, but the right-wing fundamentalists here refuse to accept that characterization. As I've pointed out to them: check their funding to see whose ass they're kissing. Yep. But their research and position on marijuana was quite atypical. They support the legalization of it. That's not atypical. They don't like that marijuana sellers get to escape the brutal taxes the rest of us pay. |
"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. When you going to read the facts about the claims you have made about health care, liar? |
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, 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. In fact, you will recall that you yourself posted an article about people waiting for a specific test in Newfoundland. |
"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, and meant. That you are continuing to lie is no surprise, since you are a proven liar. |
|
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 10:52 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 5:12 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 6:49 PM: snip Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he was waiting? ===================== Read the sites fool. As you know, patient info is not released. There are stories about health care issues in the media all the time. Something as serious as someone dying while waiting for care would definitely make the front page. ================== It has before fool. Never. Prove it. ======================= Yes, fool. Try some researchof you own. You made the claim. I've done it. It hasn't happened, save for your weasel imagination. =================================== OK If you have done the research, then you should be able to refute the facts, eh liar? Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? I never said that. As I've told you more than a dozen times, as with every health care system, people in Canada sometimes have to wait. So. Did you see what I just said? People in Canada sometimes have to wait. In fact, I will guarantee that given it is a snowy night and the roads are slippery, somewhere her in Ottawa someone is sitting in a hospital and waiting for treatment. So. Do you understand that I do not claim that nobody is waiting? Or are you going to continue being a supreme weasel, scumbag, and liar, and keep stating that I claim otherwise? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... 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 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. 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! ====================== You should know about not understanding the paper, liarman. Because it is all about wait lists for treatment in Canada. Something you have claimed that Canadians don't do. Again, you are proven to be the liar you are. Nice that you like American cites now, eh liar? |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/1/05 10:56 PM: KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snipsss... My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom. Can I please try again? Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? If you will excuse and accept the following babble? I deleted it. Has he proven it? Yes, he provided evidence, and there was other evidence available! How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same as proving something, Tinkerntom. For example, your participation here in this newsgroup is something I would provide as evidence that you are suffering from mental health problems. But as I am sure you will agree, it doesn't prove it. For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while waiting for health care, and if the health care system had not responded so slowly, she'd still be alive?" Yes, read about Diane Gorsuch below! That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and died doesn't mean that caused the death. He never claimed that! If so show me Date and Time of rick's post! I am to tired to search any longer myself, having read and reread probably 100 less than inspiring epistles by you two. Sigh. Well what would be the point of claiming that someone died while they were on a waiting list but the fact that they were waiting was not related to the cause of death!?!?!!?? Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? Yes, ask and answered previously and below! How has he proven it? Can you point me to an objective report (such as a coroner's report or inquiry) that says "Person X died because they were on a waiting list and their death was preventable if they had not been on that waiting list" Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the waiting that caused them to die. Now you are changing the question, rick never claimed this. He claimed that people died while their name was on a waiting list, waiting for a test or procedure that could have saved their life. That's fine. Point me to any objective report that says someone died because they were waiting for treatment that woudl have saved their life. They still might have lost their life, even if they had the procedure, because these were seriously ill individuals with life threatening illness, usually cardiac or ontology, but that is a different issue entirely! No, it isn't. Before your deleted it, did you read it? Your promise was posted as follows; Feb 22, 7:03 am "Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology." Sigh. I am not a scumbag like rick. I make a formal and public apology. The question, although badly worded, was worded by yours truly, and, as worded,the requested burden has been met. Sadly, the intended purpose of asking such a question - to combat bizarre mythology being propogated about Canadian health care and to try to bring some focus to wild unsubstiated generalizations - has been even more widly derailed by rick's deceptive tactics that have focused mainly on ad hominem attacks and unreferenced accusations. The Canadian health care system is excellent, and what some of the articles you quoted show is that the provincial and federal governments (and more importantly the general populace) see it as a top priority and are determined to keep standards high. |
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" 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". 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. 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... |
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? |
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? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 10:52 PM: snip... Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he was waiting? ===================== Read the sites fool. As you know, patient info is not released. There are stories about health care issues in the media all the time. Something as serious as someone dying while waiting for care would definitely make the front page. ================== It has before fool. Never. Prove it. ======================= Yes, fool. Try some researchof you own. You made the claim. I've done it. It hasn't happened, save for your weasel imagination. =================================== OK If you have done the research, then you should be able to refute the facts, eh liar? Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? I never said that. ==================== Yes, you did liarman. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." As I've told you more than a dozen times, as with every health care system, people in Canada sometimes have to wait. =========================== That's not what you were claiming until your lies were exposed, liarman... So. Did you see what I just said? People in Canada sometimes have to wait. In fact, I will guarantee that given it is a snowy night and the roads are slippery, somewhere her in Ottawa someone is sitting in a hospital and waiting for treatment. ==================== Nice strawman fool. We aren't talking about waiting rooms, we're discussing waits that cause people their lives. But, if you want to discuss the problems with you hospitals because of your system rationing, then you'll find that people have died because they have been refused admission and treatment. So. Do you understand that I do not claim that nobody is waiting? ====================== Because you lie was exposed, so you now have to lie, and say you never claimed that. Or are you going to continue being a supreme weasel, scumbag, and liar, and keep stating that I claim otherwise? ========================== Yes, because you did. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14 |
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. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ===== 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 I never made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. You owe me an apology. 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. 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. |
|
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 |
KMAN says:
=================== Sadly, the intended purpose of asking such a question - to combat bizarre mythology being propogated about Canadian health care and to try to bring some focus to wild unsubstiated generalizations - has been even more widly derailed by rick's deceptive tactics that have focused mainly on ad hominem attacks and unreferenced accusations. ================= Absolutely correct on all counts KMAN. frtzw906 |
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). |
in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/2/05 12:44 AM: KMAN says: =================== Sadly, the intended purpose of asking such a question - to combat bizarre mythology being propogated about Canadian health care and to try to bring some focus to wild unsubstiated generalizations - has been even more widly derailed by rick's deceptive tactics that have focused mainly on ad hominem attacks and unreferenced accusations. ================= Absolutely correct on all counts KMAN. frtzw906 Yeah, but shame on me for playing his game. Although, I have to say (and this feels weird) since drawing Tinkerntom into the fray, the discussion has started to get more interesting and perhaps even useful. Geezus, how many Americans do you think know a damned thing about Canadian health care. Hell, Tinkerntom even knows the names of some of our political parties now! |
Tink says:
=============== Yes and the Drs are employees of the Canadian Gov, employed to make those decisions. ================ Now you see, the discussion can't move much beyond this point because doctors in Canada are NOT employees of the government. Every doctor I have ever had has had his own PRIVATE practise. They pay the office rent. They pay the receptionist. They pay the nurse. They pay the heat, light, and other utilities. They have no pension plan. They have no dental plan. They are full-fledged entrepreneurs. Unless you accept that fact, we cannot continue the conversation. Whereever did you get the idea that they are civil servants? frtzw906 |
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 |
in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/2/05 12:51 AM: Tink says: =============== Yes and the Drs are employees of the Canadian Gov, employed to make those decisions. ================ Now you see, the discussion can't move much beyond this point because doctors in Canada are NOT employees of the government. Every doctor I have ever had has had his own PRIVATE practise. They pay the office rent. They pay the receptionist. They pay the nurse. They pay the heat, light, and other utilities. They have no pension plan. They have no dental plan. They are full-fledged entrepreneurs. Unless you accept that fact, we cannot continue the conversation. Whereever did you get the idea that they are civil servants? frtzw906 Perhaps it is important to point out that their practice is regulated by government, but then, so are most medical practices in modern countries. The differences between systems comes in the terms of those regulations. But, Tinkerntom, you should know that doctors are most definitely not employees of the Canadian government. |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com