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