A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser states:
==============
Yup. That's life. Life sucks sometime. Why is that my problem?
============

Thanks, Scott, for the succinct summary of the philosophical
underpinnings of the American approach to health care.

It's not just our approach to health care, it's our approach to nearly
everything, to one degree or another. We are a people dedicated to liberty,
which includes the liberty to screw up our own lives and the liberty not to
be forced to pay for other people's mistakes and bad judgments.


Now let's all vote. All those in favor of the "Why is that my problem?"
approach to public policy?

AYE!


[SIDEBAR: I think, "Why is that my problem?" is what Canada and other
nations said when your guy went into Iraq.... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Which is fine with us, but it does mean that you don't get to share in the
spoils of war.

Only sad
bit about that is all poor young people who sacrificed for that folly.

Um...every one of our soldiers is a volunteer.

But, at least, they'll have socialized medicine when they come back,
right?]

Ever been to a VA hospital? What a nightmare to be *required* to go to a VA
hospital and be forbidden to seek your own hospital or surgeon.

--
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's query:
=============
And who paid for YOUR college education?
============

Entirely financed by me. Left home after high school graduation at 17
and worked summer jobs to fund my education. I was smart enough (likely
Scott will disagree) to seek out a union job as I wasn't keen on
getting exploited (it didn't take me long to figure that out as some of
my buddies were working for sleaze-ball nonunion shops).

Occasionally we even agree, Scott. Right now, my daughter is at
university and is there on her own dime. I gave her some money up front
to get her started right out of high school which has all been paid
back. Yes, you are correct, it does children good to know the value of
a dollar. She's working part-time while attending school full-time and,
like her father, she had the good sense to get herself a union job.

Solidarity to you brother, and cheers to the working classes ;-)
frtzw906

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


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote:

What a MAROON!

Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the
Spanish.

What an idiot.

You certainly are. You're ignorant too.

Har, har! That's what I love about this place.......every time you turn
around it's another totally unexpected original one and only one of a kind
surprise!

Wolfgang
how DO you guys do it?

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.

BWAHAHAHAHA

That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting
your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate
based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips.

Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking."


That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they
can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging my
liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the
government health plan!!!

Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which
is bad for your liver.

Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are
deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care!

That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.

That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity has
been all but eliminated there.

I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only
that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every
person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose.
What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to
heal them when they screw up.

LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people
might care about each other.

None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance

That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well
here. I wonder how they stay in business?

By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised
to put in the bank.

?

First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say
Canadians are paying to much for it?

and forces them into the public
system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism.

Yup, very uncaring, trying to ensure that everyone has access to good
quality health care.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just ask Stalin's victims.

Ah, yes, clearly Canada is just a slip away from Stalinist Russia! You are
such a joke, LOL!

I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever
health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the
government.

We are all (at least those of us up north) thrilled to hear that!

I thought you might be.

Still dancing!

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

Why do you have socialized education?

Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight
them all the time.

Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education?

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


BCITORGB wrote:


Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?


My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my
employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her
employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped
around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the
entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't
cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for
herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was
taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance
payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us,
health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and
that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before
insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A.


Wah.

I can't get health insurance either (for the same reason as you) and had to
give up my company health insurance after the COBRA period expired because I
couldn't afford (nor could I justify) the $385 per month in premiums plus
the $200+ per month in prescription co-pays. So what? Big deal. It's my
life, and my responsibility. If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves, and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care (not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the government's.

Like I have, you need to figure out how to save for a medical emergency and
not try to foist your inability to budget and save off on everyone else.

Perhaps you could forego that new playboat and SUV, drive a ten-year-old
car, cut back on the beer and cigarette allotment, wear last season's
clothes and quit going to the movies and put that money aside into an
interest-bearing savings account for emergencies. Or, you could get a
catastrophic health care policy with a large (like $10,000) deductible that
costs far less each month and forego the "convienence medicine" premium
inherent in HMO coverage and put the balance of what you're paying now into
a savings account to pay, in cash, for minor medical issues. It's entirely
up to you, but nobody said it was going to be easy.

The good news is that *I* don't have to pay for *your* health care problems
like they do in Canada. That's good, because I see no reason on earth why I
should be required to do so.


You make a whole lot of typically incorrect assumptions. No one in my
family smokes, or drinks in excess of healthy moderation. Our newest
car is 5 years old. My canoe and kayak were bought having recreation
and exercise equally in mind.

As you know, exercise is especially important for diabetics. Along
with hiking up and down the mountains around our home, I paddle. There
are two wonderful rivers just a 10 minute's drive, and paddling is a
quick, enjoyable, effective and addictive form of exercise. Hell, I
don't even know I'm exercising except for slightly sore muscles at the
end of the day. I will also utilize the kayak to fish. If I limit my
fish take to the river free of mercury & pcb pollution, and to the
local ponds, these will be a healthy addition to my diet. (Thanks to
government monitoring for alerting the public to this health concern.)

If I was healthy, and lived alone in the woods, and didn't give a ****
about others, your health care suggestion might be an option worth
consideration. However, family obligations and demanding health
conditions make insurance the prudent choice. There are others besides
myself involved in the calculations.

Also, I'm happy that a small percentage of my local and state taxes go
to support our local hospital, and supply our local emergency medical
volunteers, and help to distribute vaccines and medicines to the
community. Bizarre that any one would object to the socialization of
health care since much of it works and is already based on a
socialized, community-based model.


--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott's query:
=============
And who paid for YOUR college education?
============

Entirely financed by me. Left home after high school graduation at 17
and worked summer jobs to fund my education. I was smart enough (likely
Scott will disagree) to seek out a union job as I wasn't keen on
getting exploited (it didn't take me long to figure that out as some of
my buddies were working for sleaze-ball nonunion shops).

Occasionally we even agree, Scott. Right now, my daughter is at
university and is there on her own dime. I gave her some money up front
to get her started right out of high school which has all been paid
back. Yes, you are correct, it does children good to know the value of
a dollar. She's working part-time while attending school full-time and,
like her father, she had the good sense to get herself a union job.

Solidarity to you brother, and cheers to the working classes ;-)

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.
--
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:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.

BWAHAHAHAHA

That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting
your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate
based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips.

Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking."


That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they
can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging my
liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the
government health plan!!!

Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which
is bad for your liver.

Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are
deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care!

That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.

That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity has
been all but eliminated there.

I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only
that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every
person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose.
What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to
heal them when they screw up.

LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach.

Indeed. Liberty, self-reliance, prosperity, individual responsibility,
mutual respect...yep, lots of consequences.

No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people
might care about each other.

I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish
without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema
to you?

My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they
don't harm others, and other people neither interfere with them nor do they
require them to subsidize the equal exercise of liberty rights by others,
even when such exercise results in some ill effects. This does not preclude
anyone from offering assistance of their own free will, but it does preclude
the "community" from extracting "caring" by force of law from those who do
not choose to be "caring" for one reason or another.



None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance

That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well
here. I wonder how they stay in business?

By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised
to put in the bank.

?

First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say
Canadians are paying to much for it?

Yeah, Canadians are *really* stupid that way...buying something they can't
use and don't need. Sheesh.

--
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 3/21/05 11:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.

BWAHAHAHAHA

That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting
your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate
based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips.

Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking."


That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they
can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging
my
liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the
government health plan!!!

Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which
is bad for your liver.

Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are
deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care!

That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.

That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity
has
been all but eliminated there.

I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only
that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every
person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose.
What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to
heal them when they screw up.

LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach.

Indeed. Liberty, self-reliance, prosperity, individual responsibility,
mutual respect...yep, lots of consequences.

More like paranoid assholes walking around with concealed weapons and living
their life in fear.

No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people
might care about each other.

I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish
without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema
to you?

Living without a concern for others is anathema to me.

Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective
means of showing concern for others.

My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they
don't harm others

The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to
those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector
health care are indeed harming others.

and other people neither interfere with them nor do they
require them to subsidize the equal exercise of liberty rights by others,
even when such exercise results in some ill effects. This does not preclude
anyone from offering assistance of their own free will, but it does preclude
the "community" from extracting "caring" by force of law from those who do
not choose to be "caring" for one reason or another.

Yup, I know that's your vision. Everyone in their own little cabin with
their own little guns with their entire life devoted to protecting what's
theirs.

None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance

That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well
here. I wonder how they stay in business?

By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised
to put in the bank.

?

First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say
Canadians are paying to much for it?

Yeah, Canadians are *really* stupid that way...buying something they can't
use and don't need. Sheesh.

Well, which is it...is there not such thing as private medical insurance in
Canada? Or is there such a thing?

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

Why do you have socialized education?

Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight
them all the time.

Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education?

No, just public education financed by the forcible extraction of money from
people who don't have children in school. My model requires the actual
parents of children to pay for their children's education. If you can't pay,
don't have children or your kids might get to flip burgers, dig ditches and
harvest onions for a living. Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it, and
at least those kids will be citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens.

"Pay-to-play" seems to be the new paradigm for everything from trash
collection to access to federal lands, why not education too?

Then again, there's nothing to prevent the altruists and charitable
contributors from voluntarily funding public school programs. Heck, even
businesses have gotten into the act, recognizing that it's good policy for
them to support education for the next generation of workers they will need
to stay in business. And they understand that vocational training may be far
more valuable in the majority of cases than a college degree in a
non-technical field. A "liberal arts" degree is about as useless as an
appendix.

--
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