A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:


Well, I believe the RCMP does also enforce federal and province laws in the
vast largely uninhabited areas of Canada, including Indian reservations.

In all provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, that would be correct. ON and
QC have their own police forces which enforce the
laws in the remote parts of their territories. None of the other provinces
have chosen to form their own police forces, though they
do have the authority to do so. Many Indian reservations have their own
police forces. Those that don't would hire the RCMP in
most provinces, or the provincial police in ON and QC.

It says on the RCMP website: "We provide a total federal policing service to
all Canadians and policing services under contract to
the three territories, eight provinces, approximately 198 municipalities and,
under 172 individual agreements, to 192 First Nations
communities." Note that it specifically says "under contract" for provinces,
territories and municpalities, and
"under...agreements" for the reservations. Contracts and agreements can be
terminated.

I think the important part is the "total federal policing services." This
indicates that they retain federal powers everywhere, no matter what, and
may choose, or not choose, to provide local and municipal enforcement.



So
tell me, does the RCMP have jurisdiction to take control of a major case in
the event the locals aren't (or can't) handle it?

My understanding is that they would NOT have such jurisdiction in the vast
majority of cases. There would be likely be some
exceptions (I believe smuggling across international borders is RCMP's
exclusive jurisdiction, for example). Enforcing the national
criminal code (including murder, kidnapping, etc) is the exclusive
responsibility of the provinces.

I don't think so, based on your quote above. Clearly the national criminal
code is a federal matter, and thus the RCMP has jurisdiction to enforce it
wherever it chooses. That's always been my understanding of the role of the
RCMP.

Note that municipalities exist
at the pleasure of the provinces (not the feds), and are not enshrined in the
constitution, so the *provincial* solicitor general
would have the authority to grant jurisdiction in any specific case to a
different police force (which could be the RCMP, or the
provincial force where there is one, or it could be a force from a
neighbouring municipality) if he/she feels a municpal police
force was not up to the task for that case. The RCMP does not have the
authority to make that decision themselves.

I would guess that only applies to provincial or local laws, not national
(federal) laws.


Moreover, I suspect that in those areas where the locals do not have local
cops, the RCMP maintains jurisdiction to enforce, at the very least, federal
and province laws.

Where there is no local force, the provincial force prevails. Outside ON and
QC, that means the RCMP, but at the pleasure of the
provinces, which do have the authority to form their own forces if they wanted
to.

But I still say that the RCMP retains its authority in *all* provinces to
enforce federal laws, and that it has jurisdictional superiority over
provincial and local law enforcement in that sphere.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott, sounding strangely... well.... "Canadian":
=================
Strangely, the model I would like to see in the US is the original
Canadian/British model where the police are hired, trained and
supervised by
the federal or state government. Having been a cop in a small town, I
know
precisely how hard it is to do good police work on a limited budget
with
limited training and equipment budgets while being under constant
pressure
to play favorites in enforcement based on who's friends with the town
council and Mayor.

For a long time I've thought that, at least at the state level, all
police
officers should be hired, supervised and trained by the state, so that
they
meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as
well
as pay, and that local communities should have local officers appointed
to
them from the state police pool, and should have to provide a share of
the
funding through taxes.
=================

And you know what, Scott, I've always though that was a good model for
education. All teachers should be hired, supervised and trained by the
state, so that they
meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as
well
as pay, and that local communities should have teachers appointed to
them from the state teacher pool, (and should have to provide a share
of the
funding through taxes).

I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.

If the taxpayer funded model is to be retained, then at least the money
should be doled out with absolute equality to ensure that every school is
equally good.


Which, btw, is sort of the way it happens in Germany. Education is a
state responsibility there, hence teachers are hired and paid by the
state.

See, Scott, I acknowledge when you've got some really good ideas. [And,
yes, I agree with you on the police issue.]

Well, there you go. See what happens when you don't take it personally?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 31-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national
healthcare system?

Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To
answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that
opts out (or tries to opt out).

Actually, there are a couple of ways out. However, ol' snotty could
never muster up that much understanding of any issue, let alone
Canadian politics, to know what they are.

Not really. The provinces are firmly attached to the federal teat and depend
on it for health care money, and, the Health Care Act mandates certain
things that obligate the provinces to provide health care plans, and then
the feds set the standards for the provincial plans.

A province opting out would violate the rights of its citizens, which are
established by the Act, and the federal government would not allow it and
can issue financial sanctions against the province for failing to comply
with the requirements of the Act.

Now, I suppose a province could secede and join the US, but I imagine Ottowa
would have something to say about that too.

--
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

I think that's Scott's way of saying, "Whoops! I was wrong on that
issue. frtzw906 was right."

Thanks, Scott.

No, it's my way of saying it doesn't matter to me who is wrong or right.
It's the journey that's important, not the destination.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
=================
Too right!

frtzw906

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

In discussing the finances of Whazzits State Univ, Scott asserts:
======================
But there's profit to be made nonetheless.
================

Profits!!!! Profits!!!???? A public university makes a profit! Surely
you jest. Help me with this. Point me to a source.

No, the hospitals and clinics who hire med school graduates make the
profits. They support the med schools so they have graduates to hire.

=================
That's a stretch and I think you're making that up. It's OK to admit that
there are institutions in the USA that do not operate according to the
profit principle (police for instance). And your state universities fit into
that category. And in those universities, the med schools are a terrible
drain on resources. They are everywhere.
===============




Scott:
================
While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges,
====================

OK, and then you presume to tell me that the government exercises NO
control over the affairs of the universities and colleges?!

Other than appointing the Regents, no.

================
Well, in our other threads, you've demonstrated a number of characteristics,
but naivete was never one of them.

If the governor appoints the Regents, they also get certain "marching
orders".
========================



Sounds like a direct link from the governor's mansion into the
university president's office.

He may have persuasive power, but no legal authority except over a very
small portion of the budget.

====================
All he needs is persuasive power.
================


frtzw906

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Not really. The provinces are firmly attached to the federal teat and depend
on it for health care money,

Bull**** again. You don't know anything do you? The feds contribute
a _small_ portion of health care funding. Most of the funding is from
provincial governments.

the Health Care Act mandates certain
things that obligate the provinces to provide health care plans,

Which the provinces could opt out of - though that's unlikely,
since the plan is what the vast majority of Canadians support.

the feds set the standards for the provincial plans.

Minimal standards. The provinces are responsible for health
care.

You still haven't offered any info on how they could opt out,
but then we know you can't. You claim to have investigated
the Canadian health care system, but we know you lied about
that.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

, I don't believe it.

What you believe is irrelevant. We are concerned with the
facts. Your believes have already been shown to be mostly
fictional.

Private insurance is not allowed for
"medically necessary" care.

Where does it say that?

And IF a "medically necessary service" is insured, then access to that
service is directly controlled by the government. It is rationed and
priority lists are created and people are not allowed to "jump the queue" to
get better or faster care.

You make this up and we are supposed to believe it? Where does it say
anything of the sort?

THEY are the ONLY civilians who CAN
seek better, faster private treatment at their own expense. Of course,

No - they get treatment through different clinics, not at their expense.
Stop making this stuff up.

Good thing the US doesn't recognize extraterritoriality

Though the yanks expect their laws to be applied extraterritorially.

As it is, it's ambiguous how the Canada Health system pays
for care in the US.

Not at all. It's well defined.

feds have to "consult and agree" with the provinces, but push comes to
shove, the feds can shove the plan down the province's throat by withholding
required funds and imposing penalties.

The latter is your fantasy. All things where federal and provincial governments
are required to work together require both levels to consult and agree. That's
why federal-provincial conferences are regularly held (Unlike the US, where states
do not have enough power to require the feds to negotiate on a regular basis).
There are ten provinces, three territories and only one federal gocvernment.
When push comes to shove, the feds are outnumbered. Constitutional changes in
the early 80's were wiped out by one province - that's power.

I imagine even more force would be
used if a recalcitrant province still refused.

You imagine a lot of things. We've come to ignore most of them.

Thus, the FEDERAL government (in the person of the Governor in Council) can
define what is covered and what is not and who gets it.

Yet the coverage is defined, and changed, by the provinces. Funny how reality
doesn't follow your fantasies.

[...lots or ranting elided...]

If the government were really interested in
people, they would be happy to take on the more complicated, costly cases
that private enterprise doesn't want to deal with.

No, dickhead. If the easy stuff is done by second tier medical clinics,
then only the _expensive_ and _less_common_ procedures are left for
government. This means that the taxpayer foots the bill _only_ for the
minority of worst case care situations. If the private clinics are so
much more efficient, they should be able to handle the tough stuff.
They won;t since they are only interested in a quick buck.

Private clinics do exist already. They keep costs down by hiring poorly
trained staff and providing inferior service for routine procedures.

The threat of private enterprise is so scary that the provinces have been
bullied into regulating private clinics so that they can't even opt out of
the system and provide service strictly to those who are willing and able to
pay.

And yet the private clinics exist and provide services that one can buy.
My example of a friend that payed for cataract surgery rather than wait
for her hospital shows that.

Thus, the government SETS THE PRIORITY LIST by
dictating what is covered and what is not,

What is covered is not the same as a priority list, dickhead.

That's undeniably government priority setting and list
making.

Relax dickhead. That's an example of a region not being able to
provide an adequate level of service.

This is mostly bull****. It didn't just eliminate over-billing, which would
have been fine, what it actually did was utterly eliminate the ability of a
patient to pay for BETTER care if they can afford it, while still providing
ADEQUATE care for everyone.

There is no correlation between extra billing and better service or treatment.
Extra billing is just a way for a doctor to inflate his earnings.


YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, FASTER MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY
NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE, NO
MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE EXTRA MILE
FOR YOU!

Take a pill, dickhead - you'll bust a blood vessel.

There is no correlation between how much a doctor wants to charge and the
quality of health care. "Better" is entirely bogus in the above rant.
Faster is debatable.

Their compensation is strictly limited to what the government
feels is "reasonable," and they can't set up a private practice to make
more,

They make as much as they care to according to how many patients they
see. Doctors are allowed to set up private clinics and can take
profits out of the clinic for all work that is paid that does not
directly involve their services. They can also make money from clinical
services that are not medically necessary. Doctors remain in the highest
income earning bracket in Canada.


the only people who can get better care by paying for it are tourists,

Since when should we provide free health care for tourists?

There it is, folks, the proof positive that Canada centrally controls and
rations health care.

Not much proof. Lots of ranting though.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I know enough to know that even in Canada, the provinces are political
subdivisions of the federal government, not sovereign nation

No they are not subdivisions of the federal government. It is
a confederation.

So what? That's free enterprise for you.

You claim free enterprise is better. Yet free enterprise would
_reduce_ the services for many people. Not much of an improvement.

I get the very best health care in the world whenever I want it

_IF_ you can afford it.

while you
get to wait till your government tells you it has room for you, ****wit.

I have never waited for any government to tell me anything. Every time
I have needed any surgery, I got it in a timely manner with only my
surgeon and referring physician being involved. Sorry, dickhead,
but your lies don't hold up.

It worked very poorly.

Nah, it's just that the socialists took over.

You haven't a clue.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care
and when.

Prove it.

I've done so, in a rather long post I won't repeat here.

Your ranting did not in any way address who gets medical care and when.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

But I still say that the RCMP retains its authority in *all* provinces to
enforce federal laws, and that it has jurisdictional superiority over
provincial and local law enforcement in that sphere.

And you'd still be wrong. The RCMP takes a back seat to all local and
provincial police in enforcing federal law. If an RCMP officer observes
a person violating a federal law in an area under the jurisdiction of
a local police force, they are able to make a _citizen's_arrest_ and
call in the local cops. The only exceptions are where the RCMP work
directly with local police on a specific case - such as drug rings,
smuggling etc.

The priority structure of police in Canada allows that, for example,
the provincial police can be called in where local police are under
suspicion or are compromised. Similarly, the RCMP can step in to
investigate provincial police in the same way.

The only way they enforce laws directly is where they have exclusive
jurisdiction - such as federal buildings, airports etc. In provinces
where they are contracted to provide local policing, they obviously
have authority.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Don't forget what my purpose here is. It's to stimulate debate, and by doing
so, cause people to think.

Maybe you should consider lying less and telling the truth more.

I don't really mind being wrong (though I seldom am)

You're never willing to admit you're wrong. That's not the same
thing.

And most of my intended audience are the lurkers, of whom there are also
many

Which is why we continue to point out your lies and bull****.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, it's my way of saying it doesn't matter to me who is wrong or right

Is that why you don't care whether what you say is true or not?

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Steve Cramer wrote:

Odds are
against you, man. Give it up while you still have some sanity to cling to.

I should. But it's so easy to show what an idiot he is.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:

On 31-Mar-2005, Steve Cramer wrote:

Odds are
against you, man. Give it up while you still have some sanity to cling to.

I should. But it's so easy to show what an idiot he is.

Granted, but you accomplished that many days ago. Stop feeding the sick
puppy and go boating.

Steve


--
Steve Cramer
Athens, GA

Here's my source: Social and Cultural Planning Office, The Hague,
September 2004

NOTE: The SCP used primarily OECD and World Bank data.

Let's check out the data, and then reach a conclusion based on
data,
shall we? In each category, Canada is mentioned first, then the USA
(as
in, Canada vs USA).

Total current expenditure on health ca percentage of GDP, 2000:
8=2E5%
vs 13%

Americans spend more on better, more available health care, and they
do it
voluntarily.

Voluntarily? Like they have a lot of choice.

Total current health expenditure per capita, 2000: 2400=80 vs
4100=80

Cheapskate Canadian health care system.

Or a more efficient one.

Out-patient expenditure as percentage of gdp: 2.7% vs 5.9%

Americans get better care on demand.


Quality of the care delivered is comparable.

In-patient expenditure as percentage of GDP: 2.8% vs 3.9%

Canadians get shorted when they go into the hospital because funds
are
short.

Inpatient ca beds per 1000 inhabitants, 2000: 3.9 vs 9.8

Three times as many beds available in the US.

Total health employment per 1000 inhabitants, 2001 (FTE): 37 vs 38

U.S. Healthcare is much more efficient, as it provides much better

The quality of the care delivered is comparable in both countries. And
the waiting times for primary care in both countries are also similar.
The differences are primarily in specialty care, which has longer
waiting times in Canada, on average.

more
available service with virtually the same percentage of health care
workers.
Canadian health care is stuffed with straphangers and sinecured
government
employees.

Canadian health care workers don't work for the government. The
government
is merely the insurance provider.

The US health care system also leaves 40 million people without health
insurance.

Stephen Gallagher

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ...

I think the important part is the "total federal policing services." This
indicates that they retain federal powers everywhere, no matter what, and
may choose, or not choose, to provide local and municipal enforcement.

They can choose not to. But they can only choose to if asked to by the province (or municipality, but those are mere adjuncts to
the provinces).


I don't think so, based on your quote above. Clearly the national criminal
code is a federal matter, and thus the RCMP has jurisdiction to enforce it
wherever it chooses. That's always been my understanding of the role of the
RCMP.

Actually no. Canada's Consitution says that the feds make the criminal code, but the provinces have exclusive authority to enforce
it. It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true. It's a good thing in a way: we have a uniform criminal code across the
whole country, but we still have regional policing. It does have drawbacks, though, such as when a provincal premier declares that
he will not allow crown attorneys (who work for the province) to prosecute a federal law which he disagrees with. This is a
problem, since the feds don't have their own prosecutors. (This has actually happened.)

The RCMP does not have the
authority to make that decision themselves.

I would guess that only applies to provincial or local laws, not national
(federal) laws.

Nope. As I explained above, things are different here in Canada. Criminal laws are ALL federal laws. But according to the
Constitution it falls to the provinces to hire police to enforce them and crown attorneys to prosectue them. Most provinces (though
they cover only half the population of the country) CHOOSE to hire the RCMP to be their police force, but this is at their (the
provinces) own discretion.

But I still say that the RCMP retains its authority in *all* provinces to
enforce federal laws, and that it has jurisdictional superiority over
provincial and local law enforcement in that sphere.

And you're still wrong. With the exception of a very small category (e.g. international smuggling) as I said before.

-Paul

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

However, here's something you did get right:

====================
YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, "FASTER" MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY
NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU
HAVE, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE
EXTRA MILE FOR YOU!
===============

And that's a fact. And that's a good thng: money will NOT get you
better or faster treatment.

[Although, as we know, you CAN -- possibly -- get better or faster
treatment if you change the venue of your treatment.]

frtzw906

Paul informs Scott:
=============
It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true.
=============

That, Paul, is one of the difficulties with Scott. He's a curious
enough fellow, but I have a sense he's never travelled much out of CO,
because he "wants" to see everything through the prism of the CO
constitution. Essentially, he'll answer most descriptions of how things
are elsewhere with: "ya but, I think that's more likely to be [insert
Scott's fantasy du jour], based on the way judges have ruled here in
CO."

We can assure him about how things work in Canada based on daily
experiences, but it it doesn't correspond to his fantasy, he'll insist
we're wrong.

Oh well!

frtzw906

Scott in a lighter mood:
============
See, Scott, I acknowledge when you've got some really good ideas.
[And,
yes, I agree with you on the police issue.]

Well, there you go. See what happens when you don't take it personally?

===============

As you know, there's nothing to take personally here. I think we've
agreed on a few issues... charging the *******s who insist on watering
their lawns in the desert and filling up their huge swimming pools...
not using property taxes to fund schooling (or just about anything --
it's a very "unfair" tax as it doesn't do a good job of "measuring"
anything... )... I think there was at least one other topic... did we
talk about legalization of MJ and agree (I can't recall)...

Good to see you coming over to the bright side GRIN

frtzw906

Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

frtzw906

Me too!

And I would love to see more accountability and responsibility at the level
of the school. The school environment is extremely stifling due to the
multiple levels of bureacracy, particularly in large urban areas. Teachers
and principals lack appropriate freedom to respond to student and family
needs, and mediocrity is encouraged. One understandable resistance to
increased control at the school level comes from the fear that it is simply
an excuse to reduce education.

A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

In discussing the finances of Whazzits State Univ, Scott asserts:
======================
But there's profit to be made nonetheless.
================

Profits!!!! Profits!!!???? A public university makes a profit! Surely
you jest. Help me with this. Point me to a source.

No, the hospitals and clinics who hire med school graduates make the
profits. They support the med schools so they have graduates to hire.

=================
That's a stretch and I think you're making that up. It's OK to admit that
there are institutions in the USA that do not operate according to the
profit principle (police for instance). And your state universities fit into
that category. And in those universities, the med schools are a terrible
drain on resources. They are everywhere.
===============

Hey, there are *lots* of opportunities to make a profit, even in police
departments. Do you think the police officers, or the professors and
custodians work for FREE?

Profit drives almost every institution. Rare indeed is the organization in
which *nobody* profits. Not even the Red Cross is "profitless."





Scott:
================
While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges,
====================

OK, and then you presume to tell me that the government exercises NO
control over the affairs of the universities and colleges?!

Other than appointing the Regents, no.

================
Well, in our other threads, you've demonstrated a number of characteristics,
but naivete was never one of them.

If the governor appoints the Regents, they also get certain "marching
orders".
========================

Perhaps, but not in any formal way. Besides, CU Regents are not appointed by
the governor, and they are the only state university with a med school.




Sounds like a direct link from the governor's mansion into the
university president's office.

He may have persuasive power, but no legal authority except over a very
small portion of the budget.

====================
All he needs is persuasive power.
================

All anyone needs is persuasive power. So what? If the Regents don't want to
be persuaded, the Governor has little recourse.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...

I think the important part is the "total federal policing services." This
indicates that they retain federal powers everywhere, no matter what, and
may choose, or not choose, to provide local and municipal enforcement.

They can choose not to. But they can only choose to if asked to by the
province (or municipality, but those are mere adjuncts to
the provinces).


I don't think so, based on your quote above. Clearly the national criminal
code is a federal matter, and thus the RCMP has jurisdiction to enforce it
wherever it chooses. That's always been my understanding of the role of the
RCMP.

Actually no. Canada's Consitution says that the feds make the criminal code,
but the provinces have exclusive authority to enforce
it. It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true. It's a good thing
in a way: we have a uniform criminal code across the
whole country, but we still have regional policing. It does have drawbacks,
though, such as when a provincal premier declares that
he will not allow crown attorneys (who work for the province) to prosecute a
federal law which he disagrees with. This is a
problem, since the feds don't have their own prosecutors. (This has actually
happened.)

The RCMP does not have the
authority to make that decision themselves.

I would guess that only applies to provincial or local laws, not national
(federal) laws.

Nope. As I explained above, things are different here in Canada. Criminal
laws are ALL federal laws. But according to the
Constitution it falls to the provinces to hire police to enforce them and
crown attorneys to prosectue them. Most provinces (though
they cover only half the population of the country) CHOOSE to hire the RCMP to
be their police force, but this is at their (the
provinces) own discretion.

But I still say that the RCMP retains its authority in *all* provinces to
enforce federal laws, and that it has jurisdictional superiority over
provincial and local law enforcement in that sphere.

And you're still wrong. With the exception of a very small category (e.g.
international smuggling) as I said before.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.


However, here's something you did get right:

====================
YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, "FASTER" MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY
NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU
HAVE, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE
EXTRA MILE FOR YOU!
===============

And that's a fact. And that's a good thng: money will NOT get you
better or faster treatment.

It's not a good thing if you need or want better care and can afford it.

It doesn't serve the teenager very well since she may miss out on a future
in athletics because of the unconscionable delays in obtaining relatively
simply knee surgery that could probably be done on an outpatient basis in a
second-tier clinic...except that there are no second-tier clinics she can go
to because the government all but forbids them.

It's only a "good thing" from the socialist "you don't get to have anything
the poorest don't also get" perspective.

Not much motivation to excel under such a system.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Paul informs Scott:
=============
It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true.
=============

That, Paul, is one of the difficulties with Scott. He's a curious
enough fellow, but I have a sense he's never travelled much out of CO,

You'd be wrong. It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world, and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.

because he "wants" to see everything through the prism of the CO
constitution. Essentially, he'll answer most descriptions of how things
are elsewhere with: "ya but, I think that's more likely to be [insert
Scott's fantasy du jour], based on the way judges have ruled here in
CO."

Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a touchstone?
Besides, when discussing legal issues related to Colorado law, I of course
use Colorado law as the determinative element. Why wouldn't I?

We can assure him about how things work in Canada based on daily
experiences, but it it doesn't correspond to his fantasy, he'll insist
we're wrong.

Well, you can be factually correct and still be wrong. Socialism is wrong,
period. It's inexcusable, evil and always ends up in tyranny and oppression.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott in a lighter mood:
============
See, Scott, I acknowledge when you've got some really good ideas.
[And,
yes, I agree with you on the police issue.]

Well, there you go. See what happens when you don't take it personally?

===============

As you know, there's nothing to take personally here.

True. Pity we can't say the same of Netwits like Michael Daly.

I think we've
agreed on a few issues... charging the *******s who insist on watering
their lawns in the desert and filling up their huge swimming pools...
not using property taxes to fund schooling (or just about anything --
it's a very "unfair" tax as it doesn't do a good job of "measuring"
anything... )... I think there was at least one other topic... did we
talk about legalization of MJ and agree (I can't recall)...

I don¹t recall either, but that's an easy one: Yes, but with some
reservations...


Good to see you coming over to the bright side GRIN

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

You're welcome, Scott. In researching this topic, I learned a few things, too.

And to everyone else: see what happens when you avoid hurling invectives. Most people don't respond well to insults. And who can
blame them? Once the insults start, nobody is going to gain anything, and it's all just a waste of time. And I don't care who
started it. Even if you think the other guy did it first, it's still no excuse for doing it yourself.

-Paul

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

Well, as to policing, everybody has to pay for it anyway, I merely propose a
different way of organizing the police, not any fundamental change in how
they (or firefighters) are funded.

As to schools, the caveat is the "if public schools are to be supported by
taxes" part of my statement. I still believe public schools are inefficient
and wasteful and that the need for schools can be much better served by the
free market combined with government stipends to economically disadvantaged
students.

But, so long as the public school system is going to exist, it ought to be
run much more efficiently and fairly than it is now. It's a lemon/lemonade
argument.

As to medical services, I have said previously that I have no objection to
providing public medical care for indigent CHILDREN, but when it comes to
adults, I believe that they should be responsible for their own lives and
health. I also firmly believe in a two-tier system where indigent children
can obtain the best possible care at public expense while, unlike Canada,
those who can afford it can obtain better, faster care by paying for it.

The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive cases
to the state is idiocy.

I would expect that any reasonable person would *welcome* off-loading as
much of the medical care expenses as the public is willing to pay for
privately. The Minister's claims are idiotic because the way the system
works now, neither the "easy" or "hard" cases can be excluded, and everyone
is entitled to care, so the costs to society are much hither, and the system
discourages, and functionally outlaws the "second tier" private market.
Thus, the taxpayers have to pay for *everyone*, easy and hard cases both. It
would save significant taxpayer money if the state ONLY had to take on the
"hard" cases and care for the truly indigent and poor who cannot afford or
don't want to spend their own money for better care, while allowing the
system to be unburdened of the "easy" cases that the wealthy can easily
afford to pay for. Note that this doesn't change the way the national system
is funded. Everyone can still be required to contribute through taxes, but
they would have to contribute less while being free to buy better care than
the national system provides if they have the extra disposable income.

What's the downside of doing so? None, that I can see.

The only excuse for not allowing such a two-tier system is *socialist
dogma!* The Minister's statements reveal quite clearly that the real issue
is not economics, but political egalitarianism by force of law. The
government WILL NOT ALLOW rich people to buy better care because it offends
their socialist sensibilities of "fair play." They firmly believe that
EVERYONE must suffer under the same inefficient, wasteful, slow medical care
system merely because SOME people would have to do so in a two-tier system.
It's the "queue" mindset that says that everyone is equal and all must
suffer equally, so the rich cannot be allowed to "jump the queue" because it
is seen as "unfair" to those who aren't rich. It has nothing to do with
medical care.

Pure, unadulterated socialism. Bad, very, very bad.

I have no intrinsic objection to a public health care system paid for by
taxes that would provide essential or critical/trauma care to all persons at
public expense PROVIDED that the taxes imposed to pay for such services are
the result of a VOTE of the people who have to pay the tax, not a tax
imposed by legislators. In Colorado, that's not a problem because of TABOR
(Taxpayers Bill of Rights) that requires a taxing authority to put the
matter to a public vote for *all* new or increased taxes. Unfortunately,
TABOR is not a national policy, but should be.


--
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

On 1-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Michael Daly

You seem to have a problem with me. Too bad, dickhead.

Mike

Scott:
===========
Hey, there are *lots* of opportunities to make a profit, even in police
departments. Do you think the police officers, or the professors and
custodians work for FREE?
============

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say.

You're right, I don't work for free. But that still doesn't explain how
a university (a state university) makes a profit.

frtzw906

Scott queries:
================
Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?

frtzw906

Scott claims:
============
It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world,
and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.
============

WOW! You've "seen" every socialist state on earth?!

Scott boasts:
===========
Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a
touchstone?
===============

One those issues on which we agree --sort of. You have a pretty good
system and it makes for a good touchstone. But, there's also plenty
wrong with it and, guess what, occasionally other nations have figured
out how to do things better.


frtzw906

Scott:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I don=B9t recall either, but that's an easy one: Yes, but with some
reservations...

Good to see you coming over to the bright side GRIN
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I'll bet we could explore plenty of issues in the realm of social
libertarianism and find common ground... waddya think? Do you fancy
yourself a social libertarian?=20

frtzw906

Scott:
===========
The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of
Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the
clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive
cases
to the state is idiocy.
============

Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any
sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected
against exactly that: cherry picking.

Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to
drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to
make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm
about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a
Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from
anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits
that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the
blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it
cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk
clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive
clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other
jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model]

Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me
off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two
sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents,
dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this
school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a
very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the
academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and
leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our
ability to provide quality to everyone.

I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If
one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be
permitted.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott:
===========
The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of
Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the
clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive
cases
to the state is idiocy.
============

Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any
sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected
against exactly that: cherry picking.

Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to
drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to
make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm
about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a
Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from
anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits
that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the
blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it
cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk
clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive
clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other
jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model]

Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me
off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two
sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents,
dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this
school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a
very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the
academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and
leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our
ability to provide quality to everyone.

I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If
one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be
permitted.

frtzw906

If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)

Now to your point, that is exactly what will happen. It's so obvious...poor
people and/or those more difficult to work with will be left behind. What is
the incentive of a profit-driven school to serve them? None.

Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without
ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for
everyone else.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 1-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Michael Daly

You seem to have a problem with me. Too bad, dickhead.

Nah, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
Hey, there are *lots* of opportunities to make a profit, even in police
departments. Do you think the police officers, or the professors and
custodians work for FREE?
============

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say.

You're right, I don't work for free. But that still doesn't explain how
a university (a state university) makes a profit.

I didn't say the university made a profit, I said, quite specifically,
"there are profits to be made."

Universities are profit generators. That the university itself doesn't show
a profit is irrelevant, they are a huge part of the economy of most
communities, not just from wages and compensation for employees, but to the
community that serves the students and faculty. And then there are the
scientific discoveries that universities foster and patent. They, and the
public, share in the profits accruing from such things.

People support universities not simply because they provide advanced
knowledge, but because they are massive profit-generating engines for the
communities and the nation as a whole.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott queries:
================
Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?

Indeed. There's (c) as well. Can you figure out what it might be? I've given
you many clues.

--
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