BoatBanter.com - Canada's health care crisis

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Canada's health care crisis (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/29324-canadas-health-care-crisis.html)

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott thinks:
===============
The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of
money
from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all
persons in
the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an
uncontrolled
fire.

Nonsense Scott!

I have my own firefighting equipment and can protect my own property and I'd
never be responsible for starting an uncontrolled fire! Why should I have to
pay because people like you are careless and can't take care of their own
property!

I do too. Several thousands of dollars worth, in fact. However, most people
don't, and don't have the skills required to effectively fight a fire even
if they do. Also, they may not be around when a fire starts and therefore
will not be able to douse the fire before others are harmed.

Thus, it is reasonable and prudent to maintain a cadre of properly trained
and equipped personnel at public expense.

--
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 22-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And we should take YOUR word for it because....???

Because I actually have the insurance you claim is illegal
and impossible to get.

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

You claim to be a journalist and editor and you don't have
any concern for the truth.

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity. It's not
"journalism." This is a debate where I'm free to assert anything I like.
It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

Perhaps the AP writer went
to the same school of dickhead journalism that you did.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

--
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 22-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

Slightly more than half of those that bothered to vote. The net is
a minority.

If you don't vote, you necessarily accept the judgment of those who do.

The fact that that many Americans consider Bush to be sufficiently
intelligent says more about how stupid those Americans are than
how smart Bush is.

And we should believe you because...???

--
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 Franklin wrote:

There are many ways that society pays the price for
illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs.
The
economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick
or
injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity,
overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs
to
consumers), etc.

And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government.

Huh? Payrolls get inflated because businesses don't want to lose their
profit margin, government has nothing to do with it.

Wrong, Government mandates minimum wages and imposes payroll taxes and
forbids employers from shedding employees who are a net drain on their
business under, among other laws, the ADA.

When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money.

So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should
government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business
owner
fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why
should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to
protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is
essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him
healthy, not the government or the rest of us.

Again... huh? Who's talking about government bailouts? That's just the
cost of doing business? Sure... to you. You're the one paying for inflated
prices. If the business owner needs to purchase health insurance to keep
his employees healthy, it costs him extra. And you're the one who bears
that additional cost through price increases.

But that's voluntary. I'm free not to buy his product if I don't like the
price.

If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just
provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better.

So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but
they're
enormous.

Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism
are
the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That
responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else.

No, I don't. I'm simply saying that poor health care has secondary impacts
that, among other things, manifest themselves in higher prices. Higher
prices that *you're* going to pay. You don't want government to step in and
help keep the economy more efficient? Fine, but it'll cost you.

Fine by me, so long as government stays out of it *entirely.* Problem is
that it doesn't, which means that the free market is always skewed by
government intervention.

--
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 in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come
across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly
increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

My example was throwing someone a life preserver.

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

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott thinks:
===============
The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of
money
from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all
persons in
the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an
uncontrolled
fire.

Nonsense Scott!

I have my own firefighting equipment and can protect my own property and
I'd
never be responsible for starting an uncontrolled fire! Why should I have
to
pay because people like you are careless and can't take care of their own
property!

I do too. Several thousands of dollars worth, in fact. However, most
people
don't, and don't have the skills required to effectively fight a fire even
if they do. Also, they may not be around when a fire starts and therefore
will not be able to douse the fire before others are harmed.

Thus, it is reasonable and prudent to maintain a cadre of properly trained
and equipped personnel at public expense.

No way! Why should I have to pay for it! I also have people hired to protect
my property 24 hours a day. I don't need the public fire department service!
I should be able to opt out! You commie!

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.

It's all about levelling the playing field.

When you "level the field," you remove all the peaks to be conquered and you
drive the opportunities to excel into the ground. Level playing fields are
for soccer, not life. It is the adversities we face in life that cause us to
succeed. The lower on the mountain you start, the greater the reward you
reap when you reach the summit. Helicoptering people to the top of Everest
in order to grant grandma in her wheelchair a "level playing field" devalues
the struggle of actually climbing the mountain.

Not everyone is destined for fame and fortune, and it's ridiculous to try to
ensure that every child will be successful. One of the worst things we do to
our children is the systematic, socialistic excision of competition from
education. From soccer leagues that don't keep score to banning running
races because somebody has to lose, this anti-competetive "level playing
field" agenda is destroying the motivation for innovation and excellence
that helps the poor become not-poor.

That's a lot of what having a
society is all about Scotty. Making sure that every child - regardless of
family situation - can access education and healthcare is fundamental to
giving kids a chance at the type of life others are simply born into.

The question is how far down that road society can go without destroying
itself through "leveling" everyone out.

As I said, my argument is not about children and their opportunities, and I
have agreed that society has an obligation to support innocent children. My
argument is against socialized medicine for adults, and I've stated that
public education frequently fails to provide an adequate education for many
children *because* it is socialized, and that private education is far more
effective because it provides the stimulus to succeed that public education
does not.

Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"

I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A
society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and
health care is a society deserving of implosion.

Fine. Now, by calling it an "entitlement," you remove the offensive burden
of calling it a "right" because an "entitlement" is something that the
government can be compelled, by it's bosses, the people, to provide. The
distinction is important because the offending party in any failure to
provide an "entitlement" is the body which "entitled" people to claim the
benefit, not the individual who is compelled to do something in support of
another individual's "rights."

However, I do warn that the "do it for the children" argument is a
dangerous one indeed. I believe more is required to justify legislation than
merely "do it for the children." There needs to be some overall social
benefit that outweighs the potential negative effects of the legislation.

That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?

It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it.

A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child
that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry.

It's the parent's duty to fight for their children's future.

Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.

Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about?

Figure it out.

Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to
poverty?"

From their parents.

is all they know is poverty?

Nobody can live in North America these days and "only know poverty." Every
human being on this continent is deluged with the knowledge of prosperity
and success.

Geez you are dense. If they are
illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into
Harvard and onto the presidency?

They'd better try. Many have, and many have succeeded. If you go to far in
"leveling they playing field" children will have no reason to succeed on
their own. This is not to say that that poor children do not deserve support
and encouragement towards success.

FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.

Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.

Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county.

No, the parents should.

You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I believe in a hand up, not a handout.

Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are
sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving
a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life.

I don't disagree. I'm more concerned about adults.

Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all
they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.

How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.

I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public
education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public
education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else.

If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.

It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all
children if selfish prigs can opt out.

Ah, now we finally come to the real issue. Why is it "not possible" for
society to provide these benefits if everyone doesn't participate? Is this
really true? I think not. For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.

And then there's charity. A huge number of hospitals in both countries are
private Catholic hospitals funded by the Catholic church and they provide
free health care for the indigent. There's lots of charitable foundations
and organizations, and private donors who would very likely be able to
provide necessary medical care to indigent children without the
participation of the government...at lower expense to the public.

So, it is self-evidently not true that it is "not possible for a society to
provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt
out."

Moreover, your claim is simply untrue. There are lots of people who "opt
out" of paying taxes, including, interestingly, the poor themselves, and yet
society continues to provide services to them.

What your claim really means is that YOU don't like the idea that other
people can "opt out" because it offends YOUR sense of fairness and
socialistic egalitarianism. You think that everybody should suffer equally
on that "level playing field." Unfortunately, even in your Canadian Utopia,
not everybody plays on the same field or pays their "fair share." That's
life.

There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for
the
very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or
merely
require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs
sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged explicitly
to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry.

The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and grab
one.

I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.

I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to
education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own
opportunities.

Feel free to open up your wallet and adopt the whole family if you like.

If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship
captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his
teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that.

LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.

Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians?

Evidently, given the fact that a million illegal immigrants a month flood
into the country to take these jobs.

I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant
should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will
need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those
born into wealth.

And yet you've not demonstrated that society is unable to provide those
benefits at private expense rather than public expense. Private operations
are *always* more efficiently and economically run than government
operations.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the
graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure
and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

You didn't really answer the question.

Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

Sure I did. It was a dodge.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates?

Yes or no.

Asked and answered.

FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?

Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write
his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass
grade eight on his own merits.

And yet he graduated from an Ivy-league college, flew fighter jets in the
military (which I'm betting you've never done), was the governor of Texas
and is now the President of the United States.

I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and
ignorant proclamations.

--
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