A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 17-Feb-2005, Lynn Tegrity wrote:

The Kyoto treaty is
an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our
strong economy.

The Kyoto Accord is an example of people trying to get other people
to take some responsibility for their actions.

Actually, it's about people trying to point fingers and inspect motes while
ignoring planks.

After they've cleaned up their own mess, then we'll consider their requests.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weisr says:
===============
In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one
that
isn't so busy, anywhere in the US
================

Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to
another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the
clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees
to the malady.

Weiser says:
=================
It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical
cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and
not infrequently die while waiting for the list
===========================

You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly
not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line.
People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for
elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But,
would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of
the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line.
Seems logical and fair to me.

Weiser says:
===================
given a false high priority through political influence or other
forms of corruption.
=======================

Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never
happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public
outrage is palpable.

Suffice to say: it happens rarely enough to not be significant to this
discussion.

frtzw906

Weiser says:
======================
too few underpaid doctors.
========================

Doctors to the left of me, doctors to the right... and not one of them
underpaid.

Do you have any idea at all about how doctors are paid in Canada? Do
you know how their compensation is determined?

frtzw906

Weiser says:
=================
Too many sick people, too few underpaid doctors. The math is
inevitable.
===================

I'm going try to get a handle on the way doctors are remunerated in the
USA. If I paint with too broad a brush and make significant errors,
I'll be happy to corrected by you, Scott.

Is it fair to say that a significant number of Americans carry private
medical insurance? I'm going to assume they do.

In these private medical insurance cases, I'll further assume that the
doctor gets paid by submitting a bill to the insurance company.

Now, if these insurance companies are anything at all like other
insurance companies, they're not particularly fond of handing over
money. I'm going to assume that they scrutinize all the bills that get
submitted. Further, if they act as good agents for their shareholders,
they'll deny any costs that appear out of the ordinary. To keep life
simple, they very likely have a fee schedule: $X for setting a broken
collar bone, $Y for removing tonsils, etc etc.

And exactly how is this different than Canada?

You suggest that in Canada, there are "too few underpaid doctors".
You're trying to make some sort of economic case, I guess. Hmmmm, thus
we'd have to assume "too MANY underpaid doctors" in the USA. Clearly,
in the USA, the free market ought to find an equilibrium as more people
go into a very lucrative profession. But this is apparently not the
case. There appears to be a doctor shortage in the USA as well.

Well!!!! Isn't that peculiar!

Of course it's not if one understands power. Bargaining power! It's the
oldest trick in the trade union guidebook: keep supply artificially
low. Hey, if it works for longshoremen, why not doctors?

frtzw906

I always loved coming into the states - especially through Miami Florida
just after Bush stole his first presidency.

You, a non American, are asked to fill in several forms with boxes to
fill. I always feel like asking if they want a tick cross or Chad and
who is going to count these and anyway they are a good reflection of the
intelligence of the CIA terrorism controls and other forms of attempted
control. Among the questions you are asked are
1 Are you a member of a terrorist organisation?
2 Are you addicted to Narcotics
3 Were you a member of the Nazi party between xxxx and xxxx.
The rest are just as inane.
Apparently the reason for asking you these questions is so that they can
do you for lying if you are caught!

It is no wonder the phrase dumb America has arisen!

Surely the answer to all this is to look at the cause of the terrorism
and attempt to answer the questions raised.

Palestine has for too long been ignored and it was not till many years
of terrorism that the rest of the world started looking at the plight of
the refugees in Gaza and the other OCCUPIED by Israel territories. Al
Quaeda has its own agenda and maybe looking at the reason why they have
picked on the west in general and the USA in particular would help solve
the threat for better than trying to impose Western ideals on reluctant
people. I would argue that this has created more terrorism than it has
prevented.


In message , Scott Weiser
writes
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to
be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases.

No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they
can move about freely and without scrutiny.


One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny,

You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There
is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border
is _not_ open.

It's more open that it ought to be.


and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US

Which only proves that the US can't control its borders.

Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You
wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however,
is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do.
You won't like it if we do.

Don't blame anyone for your problems.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its
part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to
close the border, which will wreck your economy.

The 9/11 terrorists
arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada.

And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist
with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at
Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up
the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent.
Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well.


--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weisr says:
===============
In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one
that
isn't so busy, anywhere in the US
================

Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to
another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the
clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees
to the malady.

Weiser says:
=================
It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical
cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and
not infrequently die while waiting for the list
===========================

You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly
not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line.
People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for
elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But,
would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of
the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line.
Seems logical and fair to me.

They die not because they are critical, they die because they *become*
critical, and unsalvagable, because they cannot obtain treatment for
illnesses that would prevent further declines in health, leading to
debilitation and/or death, because "critical" cases come first.

One anecdote I read was the heart patient awaiting surgery in England who
wrote to the Queen to beg for help because she was two years down the
surgery list. The Queen commiserated with her and suggested that if she
actually had a heart attack, she would move up on the list.

Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating until, while not critical enough
to jump the queue, they eventually succumb to irreversible medical problems
that might have been prevented, or significantly slowed if they had received
prophylactic treatment early on. But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often
doesn't happen.

Basically, the system waits till you've become critically ill to treat you,
and then you have a much higher risk of dying because the disease's course
is irreversible.


Weiser says:
===================
given a false high priority through political influence or other
forms of corruption.
=======================

Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never
happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public
outrage is palpable.

As it should be. Then again, it's a matter of being hoist on your own
petard. You folks created the socialized medicine system and you accepted it
because you think you shouldn't have to pay for your own medical care...that
someone else (everyone else) should be responsible for your illnesses, so
you suffer the consequences, which is fine by me.

My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of
taxpayers. Does that mean that poor people may die because they cannot
afford emergency treatment? Sometimes, but not often, because our federal
government subsidizes (there's that nasty word again) hospitals to provide
emergency medical care to the indigent and poor. It's pretty much true that
in the US, if you urgently need life-saving medical care, you can get it,
regardless of your ability to pay.

Routine care, elective care, and non-critical care is another thing. You may
suffer more from bronchitis than a rich person because you cannot afford the
antibiotics, and you may suffer the ill effects of type II diabetes because
you don't need emergency insulin, but that's your problem, not the
taxpayer's.

On the other hand, you can also go to the myriad of charitable hospitals
(most of which were founded by and are still supported and operated by the
Catholic Church) and receive some of the best medical care on the
planet...absolutely free, and at no cost to taxpayers.


Suffice to say: it happens rarely enough to not be significant to this
discussion.

Unless you happen to be one of the ones who dies...

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
==========================
Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating
=================

Could it be that you're describing people in the USA who cannot afford
medical coverage? Hell, as you describe Canada, at least we've
acknowledged their illness and pain. I'm guessing these people aren't
even statistics in the USA because they can't afford to see a doctor to
figure out what's bothering them in the first place.

Weiser says:
===============
But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and
often
doesn't happen.
=============

Precisely the opposite is the case. Because EVERYONE is entitled to
treatment, everyone goes to see the doctors before conditions worsen.
Thus, prophylactic care is administered to all who need it -- very
EARLY in the process.

Weiser says:
=============
My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal
responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem
of
taxpayers.
==============

And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western
nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely
(along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic
national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't
compete in economic (or military) battles.

Clear philosophical differences.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=============
My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal
responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem
of taxpayers.
==============

And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western
nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely
(along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic
national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't
compete in economic (or military) battles.

Considering the widespread use of prescription drugs with amounts that
are staggering by most western nation's standards, the high percentage
of overweight and obese people, it seems that the population is a lot
less healthy than that of most other western nations, despite the
enormous amounts spent on health care in the U.S..

Since health care spending in the U.S. towers over that of other western
countries with a much older population, and the health of the average
U.S. citizen isn't equal to or better than those in other western
nations, it seems obvious that the system doesn't work all that well.
Increased health care spending obviously doesn't equate improved public
health.

Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot, but half of them would
probably die of heart attacks if they had to run 100 yards to cover.

Nah, I don't see that citizen uprising with privately owned weapons
happen... ever! :-)

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

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more
countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars.

We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war.

And exactly where *are* the now infamous WMDs that that misinformed shrub warned
U.S. omniously about, and used as a justification for ATTACKING another soverign
nation?

I've said all along, Dubya attacked Iraq for exactly two reasons:

1. OIL (Obviously)
2. Because Dubya's daddy didn't do it right the first time!

John_Kuthe...


(Glub, please forgive me for 1. perpetuating this inane thread and 2. arguing
with Scott Weiser! ;-) )

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
======================
too few underpaid doctors.
========================

Doctors to the left of me, doctors to the right... and not one of them
underpaid.

Compared to US doctors? Please. That's one thing that socialized medicine
absolutely cannot match.


Do you have any idea at all about how doctors are paid in Canada? Do
you know how their compensation is determined?

By the free market.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser