rick cites:
============
The Health Resource Centre, a 37-bed clinic at 1402 8th Ave.
SW, will only be allowed to work on Canadians covered under the
Workers' Compensation Board insurance, or employees of the
federal government, the military or RCMP.
===============

That was 2002. Are you sure that's still the case? Are you aware of
Premier Klein's relationship with the feds?

As I'm sure, as an American, you're familiar with state's rights. Are
you aware of provincial rights? But, more to the point, are you aware
how federal funding to provnces is affected by deviation from the
federal healthcare plan?

The relationship we're talking about is not so simple as to be
explained by a 3-year old newspaper article. Given that we're talking
about Premier Klein, I'm not surprised. What I'm curious about is if
this situation still exists in 2005.

frtzw906

Scott insists:
===============
Everyone should be able to seek out a hospital and/or a surgeon
that can provide service immediately. In Canada, while people sit on
waiting
lists, beds in hospitals are empty or occupied by chronically-ill
patients.
Even if your local hospital is idle, if you're not at the top of the
list,
they won't help you.
===============

If beds are empty and the hospital is idle, why wouldn't they help you?


It seems to me, you get waiting lists (waits of any kind) when
enterprises (including hospitals) are operating at or near capacity.
You'll wait when there are no more beds, no more doctors, or no more
nurses. What other reason would there be to wait?

One of the most discussed waits in Canada appears to be MRI's. It seems
we've not bought enough. On the other hand, it appears they're as
commonplace as slurpy machines at a 7-11 in the USA. Quite likely,
we've been a bit miserly when it comes to MRI's. On the other hand, all
the private clinics in the USA which sport these spiffy macines are
going to have to recoup their investments. This they do by taking it
out of the pockets of those who require the MRI. So, wait for a couple
of days in Canada, or wait a few minutes in the USA (and pay dearly for
the convenience).

If hospitals are "idle", there's absolutely no waiting. They quickly
spring into action.

Where do you get your data?!

frtzw906

Scott on government bureaucrats:
================
Oh, they're there, you just don't see them. They work behind the scenes
prioritizing patients and sending letters to people telling them to
wait,
and apologizing if they die in the process.
==============

So, like the boogey-man under your bed, eh? Look, you still haven't
told me "who" this bureaucrat might be. What's his/her title. Would you
be referring to hospital administrators? Methinks you've got them in
American hospitals too. Doing pretty-much the same thing (except no
need to show a profit in Canada).

Please, find out for me who these bureaucrats are.

frtzw906

Scott, commenting on many (most) in Canada getting immediate ca
==================
Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery have to
wait
three years.
==================

Notwithstanding the protestations of rick, several of us from Canada
have commented on, and admitted, that one of the consequences of our
style of healthcare is that, for some procedures, there are waiting
lists. That's a fact. But it's a price we're willing to pay, so that we
can provide immediate care for most of the people, for most procedures,
most of the time.

So let's take the cae you bring up: teenagers who need knee surgery. I
don't know if teenagers in Canada who need knee surgery nmust wait 3
years as you claim. [Aside: you might be able to pull such an isolated
case out of the archives somewhere, but it is unlikely to be the rule.]


Now let's switch our focus to the USA for one moment. Let's also assume
a teenager who needs knee surgery. Let's further assume that this kid's
family is uninsured.

Can we expect that she'll get immediate attention at her local
hospital? Or will she need to wait? Is it likely that as people with
insurance arrive, some "bureaucrat" in the hospital will priorize and
thereby establish a "waiting list"?

Can you assure me that, under the American system, the teenager will
get immediate attention, ahead of those with (a) more emergent need
(after all, she did arrive ahead of them) and (b) those with equivalent
need but covered by insurance?

Tell me about your waiting lists for non-emergent cases without
insurance, OK?

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick cites:
============
The Health Resource Centre, a 37-bed clinic at 1402 8th Ave.
SW, will only be allowed to work on Canadians covered under the
Workers' Compensation Board insurance, or employees of the
federal government, the military or RCMP.
===============

That was 2002. Are you sure that's still the case? Are you
aware of
Premier Klein's relationship with the feds?

As I'm sure, as an American, you're familiar with state's
rights. Are
you aware of provincial rights? But, more to the point, are you
aware
how federal funding to provnces is affected by deviation from
the
federal healthcare plan?

The relationship we're talking about is not so simple as to be
explained by a 3-year old newspaper article. Given that we're
talking
about Premier Klein, I'm not surprised. What I'm curious about
is if
this situation still exists in 2005.
=====================
Seems pretty simple to me. If you work for the right people you
get to go ahead of the rest. Maybe that's the problem, it's too
simple for some jingoistic apologists, eh?

Looks the same today, but then, you'd never want to bother to
check on that, right?
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/?nopic...ate=2004/09/15
statement from a guy waiting 2 years for knee replacments, and in
now on morphine because of the wait...
"...A friend who had been waiting a long time for lower back
surgery had an accident at work and made a claim to the WCB.
"He gets three MRIs, two CAT scans, and he's in to see the
surgeon within 30 days. They don't want to pay him while he's off
work. They want him in there right away, and they want the claim
settled," said Binfet. The Canada Health Act requires there be
equitable access to care, said Linda Mueller, public affairs
officer with the Ministry of Health Services in Victoria.
However, certain organizations are excluded from the requirements
of the act, she said Tuesday. ICBC is not one of them, but the
WCB, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces are..."


And, to add insult to those waiting, they also use the same
public hospitals with long wait lines as well as private
clinics..
"...the WCB uses public clinics during hours they would normally
be closed as well as private clinics to offer expedited services
to B.C.'s injured workers. The WCB pays specialists a premium for
this service..."
http://www.worksafebc.com/for_health...rs/default.asp




frtzw906

rick asks:
================
Looks the same today, but then, you'd never want to bother to
check on that, right?
=================

Well as a matter of fact, I was aware of the armed forces, the RCMP,
and WCB cases. I never denied it in any of my posts. I am not aware,
however, that federal employees other than the armed forces and the
RCMP get such consideration. That's why I asked you for your source.

As to the exceptions you state, I don't necessarily like them, but I
suppose we could make cases for the armed forces and perhaps the RCMP.

I disagree with WCB clients getting preferential treatment. It's a flaw
in the system. Let's fix it.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick asks:
================
Looks the same today, but then, you'd never want to bother to
check on that, right?
=================

Well as a matter of fact, I was aware of the armed forces, the
RCMP,
and WCB cases. I never denied it in any of my posts. I am not
aware,
however, that federal employees other than the armed forces and
the
RCMP get such consideration. That's why I asked you for your
source.

As to the exceptions you state, I don't necessarily like them,
but I
suppose we could make cases for the armed forces and perhaps
the RCMP.

I disagree with WCB clients getting preferential treatment.
It's a flaw
in the system. Let's fix it.
==================
By the way you've been reasoning that means making sure that
everyone again waits weeks, months, years for teatment.
If you were aware of the exceptions, then why have you been
arguing like there were none?



frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/26/05 2:48 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel
about
that?

Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've
noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet
your
needs"?

You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation
or
be branded a liar.

Brand away rick. Er, Scotty.

It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that
contradicted
what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights.

Based on what evidence, precisely?

If only I had a warrant...

But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression.

Again, based on what evidence? Or are you admitting that you're just a
brainless bigot who judges people based on some mental aberration you suffer
from?

I'm saying that based on the persona you've displayed here I could see you
with an assault rifle shooting up an entire town for passing a bylaw against
having a different colour mailbox than the one you have.

If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated
that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of
other
adults.

It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share.

You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be
ethically and legitimately imposed on others.

It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit.

Which is your right. How do you ethically justify imposing it on others,
however? Do you have any reasoned argument in support of your position, or
are you just brainlessly parroting some socialist dogma you once heard?

It's very simple, and I have explained it. I believe in universal education
and universal health care. This means I believe every citizen should
contribute. Most of the citizens in the society where I live agree with
this.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?

They'd have been better off not being shot.

Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes.

They'd have been better of not being hacked to death as well.

They
were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while
alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were
sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers
as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off
with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again.

Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda
would have even been possible?

Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to
admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing.

Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the
bad ones don't.

So, because it's factually impossible to keep "bad people" from illegally
obtaining guns, or machetes, or stones, or gasoline and matches, it's okay
with you if "good people" are brutally murdered because they have been
disarmed and are incapable of defending themselves, merely in order to
comply with your impossibly stupid utopian ideal of a gun-less society?

How remarkably barbaric and abysmally stupid.

Handing out guns won't turn a barbaric society into a peaceful one. It will
simply increase the rate of barbarism.

You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people
think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that
are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden
is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

Sure you can. Charity begins at home.

Charity cannot provide universal education and health care.

Why not?

Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding
to operate one.

That's not an explanation of why, that's a tautological assertion.

You simply failed to understand. I'll try agian.

You can't have a universal program if the means to deliver that program is
dependent upon random contributions.

When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you
think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated.

So what? Perhaps those operations and services are unneeded or improperly
run and need to be eliminated.

You asked why a charity cannot provide universal education and health care.

Perhaps society, through its unwillingness to fund these programs, is saying
that the objectives are unworthy and no longer comport with society's
beliefs about who is eligible for charity. Why is society precluded from
making such determinations?

Some societies don't have universal education and health care. Mostly those
nations that consist mainly of rubble. Oh, and the United States.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/26/05 2:48 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:47 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost.

Hitler declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Berlin.

Hussein declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad.

Declaring victory is not the same thing as achieving it.

I keep telling that to nuts who get mad when you tell them Bush stole the
election.


When have I ever said that?

Other nuts.

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott, commenting on many (most) in Canada getting immediate
ca
==================
Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery
have to
wait
three years.
==================

Notwithstanding the protestations of rick, several of us from
Canada
have commented on, and admitted, that one of the consequences
of our
style of healthcare is that, for some procedures, there are
waiting
lists. That's a fact. But it's a price we're willing to pay, so
that we
can provide immediate care for most of the people, for most
procedures,
most of the time.
========================
Despite the jingoistic spewing of others, here is a ase of a man,
not a teen, waiting for new knees. 2 1/2 years. It's so bad
that it is now bone on bone and his pain meds have been upped to
morphine.
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/?nopic...ate=2004/09/15

This guy isn't willing to wait. Why would you support that he
has to?

Then there are the people dying from heat problems while waiting.
http://www.ices.on.ca/file/14_CVA_Chapter12.pdf.








So let's take the cae you bring up: teenagers who need knee
surgery. I
don't know if teenagers in Canada who need knee surgery nmust
wait 3
years as you claim. [Aside: you might be able to pull such an
isolated
case out of the archives somewhere, but it is unlikely to be
the rule.]


Now let's switch our focus to the USA for one moment. Let's
also assume
a teenager who needs knee surgery. Let's further assume that
this kid's
family is uninsured.

Can we expect that she'll get immediate attention at her local
hospital? Or will she need to wait? Is it likely that as people
with
insurance arrive, some "bureaucrat" in the hospital will
priorize and
thereby establish a "waiting list"?

Can you assure me that, under the American system, the teenager
will
get immediate attention, ahead of those with (a) more emergent
need
(after all, she did arrive ahead of them) and (b) those with
equivalent
need but covered by insurance?

Tell me about your waiting lists for non-emergent cases without
insurance, OK?

frtzw906