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/

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


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,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

but half of them would
probably die of heart attacks if they had to run 100 yards to cover.

Maybe. But then again, if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill
only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're
willing to die in the process) we win, because the other feature of our
government is that we deliberately limit our standing army to levels that
cannot threaten the liberty of the people.

And even the issue of the National Guard and state guard forces has been
carefully thought out by the Framers. They said, and rightfully so, that a
local militia force, under locally-elected officers, would be unlikely to
agree to march to another state to impose martial rule.

That's why National Guard commanders are not appointed by the federal
government, but are selected by the Guard units themselves, ratified by the
Governor.

In the unlikely event that a demogog attempts a coup in the US, it is almost
impossible to get the bulk of citizen-soldiers in the various guard units to
go along with orders from Washington to violate the Constitution and oppress
the local citizenry...because the guard troops ARE the local citizenry and
they will simply refuse such orders. Indeed, they are far more likely to
refuse such illegal orders from Washington and then organize with other
state guard units to attack local federal troop concentrations and invade
Washington to put down the tyrant.

Even supposing federal soldiers seized all National Guard arms prior to
declaring martial law nationwide, our federal army is not large enough to
control the population...deliberately so...and the National Guard can be
re-armed with weapons *from civilians* that would make them an effective
fighting force against usurping federal troops.

This is particularly true because a would-be tyrant cannot afford to simply
carpet-bomb the very cities and populations he's trying to take control of,
so the war becomes a guerilla war waged by grunts in the field, not
high-tech standoff munitions.



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

That's what makes you a slave...the slave mentality. That was proven by your
nation's collaboration with the Nazis in WWII. Unless you're willing to die
to protect your freedoms, you don't deserve your freedoms.

On the other hand, at need, I have sufficient arms to arm at least three
soldiers with effective military battle rifles, along with a basic
ammunition load for each, while still having plenty of precision, long-range
weapons for my own use. I guarantee you that even if I can't dash a hundred
yards in 10 seconds, I can hit a human-sized target at ranges out to one
thousand yards with at least an 80% probability. Soon, I'll be extending
that effective range to closer to 1500 yards for humans and 2000 yards for
materials, with a somewhat smaller hit probability but a much wider target
destruction capability that includes unarmored and lightly-armored vehicles
and other equipment.

Should I be called upon to defend the Constitution and the nation, I
guarantee to take out at least one enemy soldier before they even know I'm
there, and probably several more before they can take me, if in fact they
can. There are a lot of people just like me out there...enough to ensure
that any invasion or attempt to overthrow our government is doomed to
failure, even without the cooperation of the National Guard.

You are free to disbelieve me if you like, but I'd recommend that you avoid
serving in the UN forces should it decide to try to take over America, if
you wish to survive. Remember the advice of military experts about
underestimating your enemy.

I would like to fill you in on an interesting bit of unknown military
history.

Back in the mid-70s, commanders of the Special Forces decided to do some
training in the northern part of Florida, near Jacksonville. They decided to
stage a training mission that called for a large group of special forces
personnel to "invade" the area around the Okeefenokee Swamp. They invited
local residents to participate as OPFORs (Opposing Forces) to oppose the
beach landing and infiltration. The locals were supplied with M-16's and
MILES gear, but otherwise they provided all their own equipment and
transportation. All they were told was that a landing would be taking place
somewhere within a specified area of beach.

To make a long story short, the locals wiped out the SF troopies. Kicked
their asses right back into the ocean, to the massive embarrassment of the
brass. It made the papers all over Florida, and I heard about it in college
in Daytona Beach.

Since then, no military training exercise has ever used local civilians as
OPFORS.

So, discount the abilities of US citizens to defend their country at your
peril.
--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


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,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street
corners.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


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,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret
police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do
not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the
point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever
where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our
system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind.
==================
I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and
bans.


Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can
buy on street
corners.
====================
You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"?

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


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,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret
police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do
not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the
point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever
where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our
system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind.
==================
I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and
bans.


Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can
buy on street
corners.
====================
You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"?

Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently he's the
President of the United States of America. He ssems to know what an assault
weapon is.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d
ebate-fact-check_x.htm

Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that expired last
month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been told the bill
couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon
ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most Republicans opposed
extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time it came up for
a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6 Democrats
opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that most of the
opposition came from Bush's own party.

http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following
combat features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously
fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually
equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for
concealability and for mobility in close combat.

A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip,
allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the
shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot
assault rifles one-handed.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can
shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows
the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without
incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves
no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to
remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but
unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash
suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the
shooter maintain control of the firearm.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to
assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so
there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a
weapon.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no
sporting purpose.

====

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a crack dealer can arm
his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner
and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to
automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up
an AK-47 these days.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


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,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street
corners.

The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they
didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did
*understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely
decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and
tyranny.

The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were
just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then
too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk)
comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if
they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit
access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing
out the baby with the bath water.

Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety."

Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed
citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an
unarmed citizenry would be.

They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would
in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to
use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault. Never
did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the
police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed
our system to prevent precisely that.

And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with
arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit
lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful,
violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal
firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment.
--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


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,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street
corners.

The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they
didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did
*understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely
decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and
tyranny.

The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were
just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then
too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk)
comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if
they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit
access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing
out the baby with the bath water.

Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety."

Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed
citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an
unarmed citizenry would be.

Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet you.

They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would
in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to
use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault.

Never
did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the
police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed
our system to prevent precisely that.

And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with
arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit
lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful,
violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal
firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment.

Holy sweet fancy moses.

The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. There was no
armed forces. There were no assault weapons. And there weren't more than
30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours.
If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted
that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip
semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon
and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they
would rethink the whole thing. Total up all the Americans killed in every
war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between
1979 and 1979. That's NOT what the framers had in mind.

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would
in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to
use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault.

Personal defense against criminal assault? That's what a "militia"
defending against tyranical government is in your mind? Bizarre!

Mike