|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "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. snip... As expected, you are too weak to apologize. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "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. I said that in your specific example, no one is waiting for treatment. They are waiting for a specific test, while under the continuing care of the physician, and receiving the specific test sooner if it becomes essential to that care. You are being deliberately dishonest and you know it. You are a scumbag. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "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. I didn't lie. The people in your example are not waiting for treatment as the FULL quote fully shows. You are a supreme scumbag. |
Tink says:
============= I am aware as I said that a number of links support your contentions, and there are some that do not support you. ============= My apology to you. I thought you were attempting to present support for rick (I guess that's what happens around here when things get adversarial). Sorry, frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============= I am aware as I said that a number of links support your contentions, and there are some that do not support you. ============= My apology to you. I thought you were attempting to present support for rick (I guess that's what happens around here when things get adversarial). Sorry, frtzw906 I understand, hopefully the fog of war is clearing alittle, for the sake of a meningful discussion. I as you are aware have my positions that I feel strongly about, but I also know that knowledge is a growing reservoir, not a stagnant pond. To often I paddle about in my little pond and forget that there are some big lakes, rivers and oceans out there. TnT |
KMAN wrote: "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. rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "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. rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT Tinkerntom, you are mixing up two different situations. There was the situation where I was challenging rick to prove that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. What is happening above is an entirely different scenario. Rick accused me of stating that there is no one in Canada waiting for treatment. That is an absurd statement and I never made it. Being the sneaky scum that he is, he posted one sentence out of a long conversation without the relevant context to try and make him look like less of a liar. But as you can see from the context, all I was telling him was that in the case of Newfoundland that he was talking about, the people concerned were in fact under the constant care of a doctor and therefore were not waiting for treatment. |
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 |
"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. But, hell's bells, it seems at least one American has cut through some of the myths of Canadian health care as a result of this, which is something eh?!? |
Well done, Tink!
KMAN, on Mar 1, 9:46 pm, in responding to you, thanked you for your conciliatory and well-reasoned post. In his`response, KMAN reiterates what I said to rick quite some time back: this could be a useful discussion on healthcare systems that we could all learn from. rick was unwilling to broaden the scope of the discussion, and that's when I opted out for a bit. I wasn't interested in being a part of his incessant name-calling. Anyway, thanks again, Tink, frtzw906 |
Hey Tink, from your posts here, I would have pegged you for an ESFJ.
Maybe you should take the test again. frtzw906 |
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. frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Hey Tink, from your posts here, I would have pegged you for an ESFJ. Maybe you should take the test again. frtzw906 I have taken it a couple of times, by different administrators, and always with same results. E in the 99% N 95% T 95% P 98% My dark side would be ESFJ, and my very dark side is ISFJ. Obviously the E part speaks for itself. The intuitive, is how I collect info, and I dont need no numbers for that, my intuition is on cruise control. I just know how thing are and should be, extremely intuitive. Inclined to go off half cocked, without all the info, but then who needs all the info. The Thinking is what I do with my intuitive info, I am always thinking about where I am, and what needs tinkering. I turn on the autopilot, and things get tinkered with. The perceive part is how I judge folks and hold them accountable to my perceptions. I am actually pretty laid back, and don't get to passionate about alot of things, just some things as you know. I like folks, but I don't need them so I can stay detached and not invested in a lot of J type judgements. In other words my dark side is that I can be a cold calculating passionate judgemental person, I prefer being sort of a general all around nice guy, My nick name growing up was Clemcadiddlehopper, which if you know who I am referring to, he did not have much needs for the facts, or anything, or anyone for that matter. Maybe a floppy hat! But if a need or threat is perceived, I can turn all guns and fire a salvo on a moments notice, without a lot of thought. I have blasted a few friends out of the water, but then I was just as quick to throw them a life preserver! Don't hold grudges to long! TnT |
Tink says:
======================== E in the 99% N 95% T 95% P 98% ==================== All I can say is WOW! to your results. In terms of interpretation, however, let me add something to you conceptualization of "N" - intuitive. This dimension pertains to your preferred ways of collecting data. "S" is for those who collect data and come to understandings through direct observation and experimentation. N applies to those who gain understanding through the abstract -- models, theories, mathematics. I liken it to the different ways in which one can do physics: (1) there's the experimental physicist - S and (2) the theoretical physicist - N. Both are, of course, valid ways to gain comprehension. Tink, I just get this impression that you're a "tinkerer" at heart - "S". You strike me as the kind of guy I'd like to meet when I'm stuck on a back road somewhere with no way to get my vehicle moving. There I am, all "N" of me, with complete conceptual and theoretical knowledge of how the G-D car is supposed to work, but nary a clue about how to "actually" make it work (that's why I always make sure to renew my CAA membership). I have a hunch you'd be the guy with the toolbox, jumper cables, etc etc, plus a nice thermos of hot coffee, who'd get down into the dirt to help me out. Am I reading you right? So, in my books, you've got to be an "S". Of course, I could be reading you all wrong. Perhaps you'd just stop and join me in my conceptual, theoretical daze - "N". frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ======================== E in the 99% N 95% T 95% P 98% ==================== All I can say is WOW! to your results. In terms of interpretation, however, let me add something to you conceptualization of "N" - intuitive. This dimension pertains to your preferred ways of collecting data. "S" is for those who collect data and come to understandings through direct observation and experimentation. N applies to those who gain understanding through the abstract -- models, theories, mathematics. I liken it to the different ways in which one can do physics: (1) there's the experimental physicist - S and (2) the theoretical physicist - N. Both are, of course, valid ways to gain comprehension. Tink, I just get this impression that you're a "tinkerer" at heart - "S". You strike me as the kind of guy I'd like to meet when I'm stuck on a back road somewhere with no way to get my vehicle moving. There I am, all "N" of me, with complete conceptual and theoretical knowledge of how the G-D car is supposed to work, but nary a clue about how to "actually" make it work (that's why I always make sure to renew my CAA membership). I have a hunch you'd be the guy with the toolbox, jumper cables, etc etc, plus a nice thermos of hot coffee, who'd get down into the dirt to help me out. Am I reading you right? So, in my books, you've got to be an "S". Of course, I could be reading you all wrong. Perhaps you'd just stop and join me in my conceptual, theoretical daze - "N". frtzw906 No, you have alot right, I in fact have a truck full of tools, and jumper cables, and tow ropes. I have been known to stop in the middle of the central valley highway, now known as TREX, and pull astranded mororist out of the traffic during rush hour. Having done so whn they offer to pay me, I say know, but let me tell you about God's Love. What higher theory is there? Do you understand it? Can you explain it? All other theories pale in comparison! Oh yeah, I know how the car is suppose to work, and if I came across you stalled out in the mountains, I would probably help you out. But moments before I may have been considering the String Theory, and if it would not be easier to transport through a wormhole to another universe. That would be one exciting trip. The S/N attribute is interesting, because though I always score high in the N category, I also have strong S capability, it is just not my preference. I am a tinkerer, but the name Tinker n Tom, comes from a dog I had when a junior in highschool. Her name was Tinkerbelle because she danced on her toes when she was around me. If I sat down, she would lay down as close as she could get to touch me. And at night, she would lay beside my bed and wimper till I put my hand down for her to touch. She would never ever get up on the bed. She would follow me to school as far as the property line, and how she knew with no fence, she would stop and be waiting for me when I came home, right where she stopped and sat all day. My Mom watched this all the time and was totally amazed, she would take water out to Tinker to drink, but she would never leave that spot. Then one day I came home and Tinker was gone, but that is another story. Now the name of my boat is Tinker, so if you ever see me, you will see Tinker and Tom! Now I also love to tinker, and a Folbot Super is a tinkersdelight, but that also is another story. Suffice it to say, that I can definitely be a touchy feely guy. Just that I am not very good at handling the juice. So know when you guys call me Tink, that was Tinkers shortened name. I would say Tink, and she would be all ears and ready to go. It brings back fond memories, and makes it harder for me to be to hard on you guys. TnT |
Tink says:
================ So know when you guys call me Tink, that was Tinkers shortened name. I would say Tink, and she would be all ears and ready to go. It brings back fond memories, and makes it harder for me to be to hard on you guys. TnT =============== C'mon Tink... after all of that, you can't convince me that you're not also an "F". You're just an old tinkering softie (SF) with nary a cold, calculating, sterile NT bone in your body. Don't fight it, man! ESFP -- whaddya think? frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ================ So know when you guys call me Tink, that was Tinkers shortened name. I would say Tink, and she would be all ears and ready to go. It brings back fond memories, and makes it harder for me to be to hard on you guys. TnT =============== C'mon Tink... after all of that, you can't convince me that you're not also an "F". You're just an old tinkering softie (SF) with nary a cold, calculating, sterile NT bone in your body. Don't fight it, man! ESFP -- whaddya think? frtzw906 Call me Tink again, I would probably have to give you a big sloppy kiss if we ever met, but don't expect me to dance on my toes for you. TnT |
On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Prove it. Not interested. It's Canada's problem. Once again you make a statement that you cannot or will not back up. Once again, you leave us no option but to assume you lying again. Mike |
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. If you want to discuss invasive species, take it to a relevant newsgroup - there are such groups in the sci.* categories. Oh, wait - respect is something you know nothing about. Mike |
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_" If you can't cope with that, it's your problem. |
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. You're lying again. Mike |
On 1-Mar-2005, Nisarel wrote:
But their research and position on marijuana was quite atypical. They support the legalization of it. The Fraser Institute's in BC isn't it? Maybe there are other paychecks coming their way. :-) Mike |
On 1-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote:
How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same as proving something, Tinkerntom. But dying while waiting and dying because of waiting are two different things. I haven't looked at all his most recent posts, but some of the numbers posted did not specify that the deaths were because they were waiting. Mike |
On 2-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:
They are full-fledged entrepreneurs. In fact, Revenue Canada will not consider a doctor to be anything else from a tax standpoint. Mike |
On 2-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote:
Nono. Stop being dishonest. Forget it - he's pulling a weiser. Mike |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ======================== E in the 99% N 95% T 95% P 98% ==================== All I can say is WOW! to your results. In terms of interpretation, however, let me add something to you conceptualization of "N" - intuitive. This dimension pertains to your preferred ways of collecting data. "S" is for those who collect data and come to understandings through direct observation and experimentation. N applies to those who gain understanding through the abstract -- models, theories, mathematics. I liken it to the different ways in which one can do physics: (1) there's the experimental physicist - S and (2) the theoretical physicist - N. Both are, of course, valid ways to gain comprehension. Tink, I just get this impression that you're a "tinkerer" at heart - "S". You strike me as the kind of guy I'd like to meet when I'm stuck on a back road somewhere with no way to get my vehicle moving. There I am, all "N" of me, with complete conceptual and theoretical knowledge of how the G-D car is supposed to work, but nary a clue about how to "actually" make it work (that's why I always make sure to renew my CAA membership). I have a hunch you'd be the guy with the toolbox, jumper cables, etc etc, plus a nice thermos of hot coffee, who'd get down into the dirt to help me out. Am I reading you right? So, in my books, you've got to be an "S". Of course, I could be reading you all wrong. Perhaps you'd just stop and join me in my conceptual, theoretical daze - "N". frtzw906 No, you have alot right, I in fact have a truck full of tools, and jumper cables, and tow ropes. I have been known to stop in the middle of the central valley highway, now known as TREX, and pull astranded mororist out of the traffic during rush hour. Having done so whn they offer to pay me, I say know, but let me tell you about God's Love. That's some scary ****, Tinkerntom. |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 1-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote: How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same as proving something, Tinkerntom. But dying while waiting and dying because of waiting are two different things. I haven't looked at all his most recent posts, but some of the numbers posted did not specify that the deaths were because they were waiting. Mike I know. But it really wasn't the point anyway. I was trying to address the broad American mythology about Canadian health care, and in trying to pin down rick to a concrete level, moved the discussion into silly semantics. |
On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. At the moment, society disagrees with you. Maybe in US society, but not Canadian society. There are no laws that dictate what consenting adults may or may not do in private. In fact, one can even choose to trade sex for money or other goods and services; prostitution is legal in Canada. You see, in Canada, we are free to act without the interference of government. But effectuating that change takes more than the sort of sophomoric argumentation you provide. It took very little time or effort to make it happen in Canada. Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision In a free country, the individual gets to make the decision. There is no "right" to engage in homosexual sodomy in several states. Only because the state has taken the right away. I'm a skilled logician You misspelled incompetent. 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. Mike |
Tink says:
================== No, you have alot right, I in fact have a truck full of tools, and jumper cables, and tow ropes. I have been known to stop in the middle of the central valley highway, now known as TREX, and pull astranded mororist out of the traffic during rush hour. Having done so whn they offer to pay me, I say know, but let me tell you about God's Love. ============= Now that would freak me out, Tink, but I'd be ever-so grateful for your help anyway. But this leads me to another question having to do with religion. I'm assuming, when you talk of religion, you're talking about Christianity, right? OK, I know this was kinda faddish, trendy, and perhaps corny a year or two ago, but what about that "What would Jesus do?" query? Look, here's where I'm going with this. Those of us in the center, politically (that would be left to those in the red states), always kinda liked that question. Even though we tended not to be the religious types, the "What would Jesus do?" question appealed to many of us because, well, the answer generally came out as "Whatever the socialists would do, that's what Jesus would do." Pick a social topic, Tink. Any topic. Let's say, healthcare plans. You've now read about quite a few different public policy options. "Which would Jesus choose?" Capital punishment (or not)? What would Jesus choose? And we could go on, and on, through a long laundry list of social and public policy issues. My bet is, 90% of the time (at a minimum), Jesus would come down on the side of the left-wing liberals. Whadda think, Tink? WINK The lefties love you! frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:32 PM: Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? I never said that. ==================== Yes, you did liarman. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. ================== Yes, it does fool. Your next sentence even emphsised what you said in this one, liarman. 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. ============================ LOL You just made my point for me, liarman. Your first statement is declarative. 'No one is waiting for treatment.' The next sentence just emphasizes it. Her you are making sure that treatment and scans are seperate things, and saying people are witing for those. Unfortunately for you, I have preseneted facts that tell that canadaians are in fact waiting for treatment, and you have now had to try to tap dance your way out of this lie. ===== 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 ====================== No, you are lying, liarman. I never made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. =============== Yes, you did, and you've even kindly quoted yourself above, liarman. You owe me an apology. ===================== No, fool, you owe the apology. I have proven that peple wwait for treatment, AND that some die waiting for treatment. I don't expect you're honest enough to admit your lies though, liarman. But I bet you are too weak to do it. ================= No need to. I haven't lied... 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. ====================== Yes, you did, and you even provided the quote yourself... 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. ============================ No fool. You didn't say that the people in the story were not waiting for treatment, you claimed that "NO" candaians are waiting for treatment. When you lie was exposed, you had to change your tune, eh liarman? You owe me an apology. ================ Nope. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... 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. ================ Not to the willfully ignorant, right liarman? 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!?!?!!?? ==================== Then read the sites presented, liarman. 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? ================ Many times, with Candians medical sources, liarman. 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" =============== camj 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. ============== camj 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. ================== You're far worse. I ay least provide evidence for the claims I make. You have nothing, liarman. 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. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... 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. ========================== I see you too are willfully ignorant, eh? Did you quit reading the sites that were posted when they started proving yours and liarmans jingoistic chest-thumping was nothing but lies? frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... 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! ====================== Apparently many know far more than you do, liarman. |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 1-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote: How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same as proving something, Tinkerntom. But dying while waiting and dying because of waiting are two different things. ================== Sure they are, but the sites I have provided prove that it is the wait for treatment that caused the deaths. I haven't looked at all his most recent posts, but some of the numbers posted did not specify that the deaths were because they were waiting. ============= And many did. Too bad you can't be bothered with the truth, eh? Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 1-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote: How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same as proving something, Tinkerntom. But dying while waiting and dying because of waiting are two different things. I haven't looked at all his most recent posts, but some of the numbers posted did not specify that the deaths were because they were waiting. Mike I know. But it really wasn't the point anyway. I was trying to address the broad American mythology about Canadian health care, and in trying to pin down rick to a concrete level, moved the discussion into silly semantics. ================== Yes, you have tried tio divert the discussion into a semantic one. It still doesn't alter the fact that you have remained wuillfully ignorant in the face of the evidence presented, liarman. |
rick, nobody gives a ****!
frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... TnT: http://canada.medbroadcast.com/healt...nnel_ id=1006 pertains to "public health"... as in health inspections of restaurants.... it says nothing at all about people dying in lines.... ================ What drugs are you on? It does however discuss a problem with an overloaded system that can't cope. Jeez, TnT, I'm willing to look at your sources, but at least determine before hand that they're relevant.... so far you're not doing well: a quack, Sweden, and health inspections during a SARS crisis... frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... snippage... Tink, whatever happened to reading with a critical eye? ================== Whatever happened with reading with your eyes open? many of the sites support that people die waiting for treatment. frtzw906 |
"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. See the context above again. It is not that complicated. ================ The context digs you in deeper into your lies, liarman. 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. ============== No fool. You lied, and continue to lie. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com