A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Mike comments to Scott:
=============
You're making this up as you go along.
==================

It's amazing isn't it. There's plenty wrong with our healthcare system
(and as we've also observed, all other healthcare systems), but Scott
has yet to identify the real issues.

Every time he's confronted by real, everyday, practical questions about
how he thinks the system works, he starts making stuff up. TOO FUNNY!

And yet you can't refute them. Interesting.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



This has
nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed
appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the
revenues need to pay the property taxes.

Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding
assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US,
schools
are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free
riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share."

Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters.
The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly
low property taxes.

You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by
all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools.
Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is
in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect
of the issue.

No, you don't get it.

The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental
properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that
does not exist.

I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care
and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools,
and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who
are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to
bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school
funding?

There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and
universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a
goal they are striving to achieve.

But while you support income tax based funding for health care, you appear
to be supporting the disproportionate burden on landowners. Is that the
case, or do you support a change of plan for school funding to make everyone
pay their fair share?

I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't
demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with
funding for schools coming from income tax.

I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners."

You don't argue very effectively for not doing so.

I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly.

And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why
do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm
talking about.

You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share.


If everybody in
the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law.

Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own
selfish
needs is not what I would call ethics.

That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly
unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility.

Then I'm as ethical as can be.

So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than
shoving those costs off on others!

You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way. I can believe in personal
responsibility without casting poor people to the wolves or instituting
daily blood testing of the population to ensure compliance with a
state-approved menu. This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No
wonder you feel the need to carry a gun!

and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible
aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the
local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know
that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family
has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key
component of their business model.

Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they
would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be
ridden out of town on a rail!

Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of
money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy
to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that
they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but
in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know
people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable
income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer
goods industry.

I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an
irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart.

This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a
Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and
lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't
have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods.

"If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of
Wal-Mart...because
they do.

Ehuh. Wow, that's a brilliant catchphrase.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

In that is says nothing, yes.

Scott asks:
==============
And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of
the
federal government? It is to laugh!
==============

OK, let's play that game. And do you think the state governments are
under the control of the federal government?

Answer me that.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott informs:
=============
Well, down here, water belongs to whomever first diverts it and puts it
to
beneficial use.
===============

That may be the way it is in CO, but that doesn't make it "right".

Sure it does. It's in our Constitution, therefore it's quintessentially
"right" because that's what the people of Colorado chose as their law.


IMHO, water, like air, belongs to the people (the state) and anyone who
wants to use it (or abuse it) ought to pay a fee (or a fine).

Fortunately, down here we don't live in a communist/socialist system. We
believe in free enterprise and the right to own private property.

And,
IMHO, anyone who "first diverts it" without permission ought to be
thrown in jail. Further, what is or isn't beneficial ought to be
determined by those who own the water -- the people!

That may not be the way it is in CO but, more's the pity!

Actually, to be perfectly technical, all water in CO DOES belong to the
people, subject to prior appropriation by private users. This means that the
water in a stream is public property until somebody diverts and appropriates
it. The system recognizes a "first in time, first in right" system that
grants the most senior user the right to that amount of water he claimed and
used over junior appropriators *provided that he continues to put the water
to beneficial use.* It is possible to lose a senior water right if you fail
to divert and put the water to beneficial use.

This system is a societal recognition of the environmental realities in the
arid western states. Without the ability to divert and use water, Colorado's
economy would never have emerged and the state would still be uninhabited
desert.
--
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, in a confused daze:
==============
Most of the real problems in Canada's health care
system have been the result of right-wing politicians' meddling.

Yup. Exactly. The government controls and rations health care in
Canada.
That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks for confirming it!

Folks
like Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell have done a lot of damage to a
system
that used to work much better.

Yeah...when it was a free market system...
===================

When it was a free markey system, we had a system where the care you
got depended on your ability to pay. It was deemed, after considerable
debate, to be inferior to a system which would insure everyone.

There is currently about as much consensus as you'll get on any issue,
in a nation as diverse as Canada, that the fundamental principles of
equity inherent in our healthcare system are inviolable. We may look
for ways to improve it and look for efficiencies, but the principle is
unlikely to change.

frtzw906

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/30/05 11:54 PM:

Scott asks:
==============
And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of
the
federal government? It is to laugh!
==============

OK, let's play that game. And do you think the state governments are
under the control of the federal government?

Answer me that.

frtzw906

Why play that game, his statement is goofy.

How little does this guy know about Canada?

Has he heard of a little province called Quebec?

Does he think the federal government controls Quebec?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

What an ignoramous.

Has he heard of Alberta?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Even Newfoundland bosses the Feds around!

Scott trying to explain the economics of a university education:
===============
More students, more tuition, more alumni donations.
===========

And where, may I ask, does tuition cover the cost of education?
ESPECIALLY med school.

Unless mandated by governments to do so (excluding the case of private
universities), I doubt any unversities would run med schools.

Since tuition does NOT cover the costs of educating doctors, please
explain the economics again.

frtzw906

Scott asserts:
==============
Every time he's confronted by real, everyday, practical questions
about
how he thinks the system works, he starts making stuff up. TOO FUNNY!

And yet you can't refute them. Interesting.
=================

Have done so every time. And every one gets batted right out of the
ballpark.

But that's OK. At least you're getting an education about the Cnadian
system. Good on USENET.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



This has
nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed
appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the
revenues need to pay the property taxes.

Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding
assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US,
schools
are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free
riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share."

Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters.
The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly
low property taxes.

You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by
all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools.
Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is
in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect
of the issue.

No, you don't get it.

The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental
properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that
does not exist.

Well, that's rather my point. It's not the properties that are being
unfairly taxed, it's the residents of the community who are being unfairly
taxed.


I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care
and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools,
and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who
are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to
bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school
funding?

There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and
universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a
goal they are striving to achieve.

But while you support income tax based funding for health care, you appear
to be supporting the disproportionate burden on landowners. Is that the
case, or do you support a change of plan for school funding to make everyone
pay their fair share?

I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't
demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with
funding for schools coming from income tax.

Well, thanks. Finally, consensus.


I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners."

You don't argue very effectively for not doing so.

I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly.

And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why
do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm
talking about.

You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share.

Sure I have.



If everybody in
the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law.

Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own
selfish
needs is not what I would call ethics.

That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly
unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility.

Then I'm as ethical as can be.

So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than
shoving those costs off on others!

You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way.

Why not? ? We do it all the time. Society doesn't pay for someone's car
repairs. We require people to be personally responsible for obeying the law.
What's to stop us from "mandating" personal responsibility?

I can believe in personal
responsibility without casting poor people to the wolves or instituting
daily blood testing of the population to ensure compliance with a
state-approved menu.

I agree. I'm just arguing that the definition of "poor people" eligible for
government assistance ought to be extremely restrictive.

This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No
wonder you feel the need to carry a gun!

You forgot to take your anti-paranoia and reality-basing medication today.


and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible
aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the
local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know
that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family
has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key
component of their business model.

Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they
would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be
ridden out of town on a rail!

Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of
money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy
to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that
they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but
in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know
people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable
income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer
goods industry.

I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an
irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart.

But I'm talking about Wal-Mart specifically.


--
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 asks:
==============
And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of
the
federal government? It is to laugh!
==============

OK, let's play that game. And do you think the state governments are
under the control of the federal government?

Answer me that.

Absolutely it is, within the sphere of authority our federal government has.
Our central federal authority is strictly limited (in theory) in the span of
its authority, and all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal
government remains with the states, or with the people themselves. But
within the sphere of federal authority, Congress' power is very strong, and
in some cases, plenary.

Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of
powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the
federal government up there. For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own system, and
some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and others,
like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the
primary law enforcement official of the county.

--
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