|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ============ As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education, I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is funded, but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct way to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!). That's all I'm saying. ================= And I've never said otherwise, except to disspell the notion that tenants pay "no" tax toward schools. Property taxes are in more than a few ways, very "odd" taxes. For example, here, where they're based on assessed market value, they penalize those who take care of and maintain their property. And, as you say Scott, they are a poor reflection of actual usage of the services they're supposed to pay for (sewage, water, garbage collection, or whatever). For many of these things, I'm over on your side Scott. Put a meter on my water (which my municipality is doing this summer), charge me per garbage can, etc. On these things, I'm very much a "user pay" advocate (including, if you'll recall and earler thread, agriculture, which you seem to want to support). Why not for health care and schools too? [Aside: all bets are off if the city tries to sell the water reservoirs and distribution rights to private, for-profit, firms -- water belongs to the PEOPLE.] Well, down here, water belongs to whomever first diverts it and puts it to beneficial use. Which is why, BTW, Colorado doesn't have any navigable waterways for you to kayak on. (Just thought I'd bring the discussion back to paddling for a moment.) -- 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 thinks:
=============== More importantly, med schools are in competition with each other for students, so it's extremely unlikely that they would shoot their own feet just to pander to the AMA. =================== Hmmm... are you sure they're in competition with each other? If I were a university president, the last faculty I'd want to increase enrolment in would be medicine. Just a quick google got me tuition figures for med school in Arizona (albeit two conflicting figures: just under $10,000 and just under $13,000 per year). I'll assume the figures are comparable around the USA. Surely you're not going to claim that $9,000 covers the entire cost of a med student's education. There's going to be a huge government subsidy that accompanies this $9,000. Med Schools have to be a royal pain in the ass to university administrators as they are incredibly capital intensive with constant demands for upgrading. It's so much simpler/cheaper to pump up admission into business schools where your major expenditures are chalk-and-talk seminars. So, Scott, I doubt very much that there's competition between universities to get med school students. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott objects: ============= No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a bunch of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and go to Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has its own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it. =============== OK, Scott, you need to decide, is it a "national" waiting list, or a "city" list (obviously, in your mind, the provinces play no role in this: or do they? What say you?)? It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system. That it may be administered at the provincial or local level changes nothing. Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even if no "central" list is kept. And, in Toronto, this "government-mandated" priority list: which government are we talking about? Any government. All government. From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto to another to improve my position? I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. That a different facility may not have the same number of people in line before you is irrelevant. Moreover, I have my doubts that you would be allowed, once assigned a priority at a hospital in your local community, to simply "venue shop" in another city, thereby jumping the queue of those above you in your original community. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong. That doesn't change the fundamental nature of the system, which is a centrally-controlled, socialistic, rationed health care system. Further, within one hospital, once I'm there, can I walk from one surgeon's office to another to try to improve my position or exercise some choice over who actually does my surgery? I donąt know. Nor do I care. The key question is who determines when you get to go to the hospital in the first place. In Canada, it's the government. Down here, it's the patient, or at worst the individual, free-market hospital. We need answers Scott. These are very real, practical, dilemmas. -- 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 thinks: =============== More importantly, med schools are in competition with each other for students, so it's extremely unlikely that they would shoot their own feet just to pander to the AMA. =================== Hmmm... are you sure they're in competition with each other? Yup. Positive. If I were a university president, the last faculty I'd want to increase enrolment in would be medicine. Just a quick google got me tuition figures for med school in Arizona (albeit two conflicting figures: just under $10,000 and just under $13,000 per year). I'll assume the figures are comparable around the USA. Surely you're not going to claim that $9,000 covers the entire cost of a med student's education. There's going to be a huge government subsidy that accompanies this $9,000. Med Schools have to be a royal pain in the ass to university administrators as they are incredibly capital intensive with constant demands for upgrading. It's so much simpler/cheaper to pump up admission into business schools where your major expenditures are chalk-and-talk seminars. So, Scott, I doubt very much that there's competition between universities to get med school students. They're just like any other business. How ever much of a pain med students are, the university has a lot invested in the med school program, as you yourself admit, and the only way to pay for all that infrastructure is to have students in the programs. Any med school administrator who went to the Regents with the argument "Med students are a pain in the butt, let's not only not recruit them, let's deny them admission so we don't have to spend any money educating them" would be fired. -- 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 |
On 29-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Probably, but down here they don't operate under government guidelines or restrictions for the admission of patients. Exactly where are these guidelines or restrictions spelled out? Mike |
On 29-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: What's government controlled is the compensation provided by the national health service for in-hospital care and surgery, irrespective of whether the doctor is a government employee or a private contractor. First of all, there are no doctors that are government employees. It has already been pointed out that doctors in Canada are all self employed. Furthermore, doctors work on a fee-for-service basis. If they do the work, they submit the paperwork and get paid. The health insurance ministries cannot avoid paying for work that has been done. You are, as usual, full of ****. Mike |
On 29-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Oh, he/she is merely a cog in the rationed health care machine that's the whole basis of socialized medicine. Then who is it that sets the limits that this person supposedly enforces? You're making this up as you go along. Mike |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are paying through their rent. Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is paying an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters are not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the renter as well. Your beef would seem to be with how properties are assessed. In part. 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. 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. "Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation, pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike necessities. I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea, Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they, like you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy. 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. 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. 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! 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. |
On 29-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority is there not? Medical care is a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one. Your ignorance continues to show every time you post. If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" If things are as you imply, it's a free market economy. Obviously, it's not, because many people are complaining about their inability to get served because the government won't allow them to see a doctor or go to a hospital. Exactly who in the government won't allow them? The reason that folks aren't being served is that the system is overloaded in a specific area for a specific treatment. It is not because the government refuses to treat people. Providing unlimited resources in every area is not efficient. The taxpayers have indicated that they want to see better service in many areas, but the politicians have been dragging their heels on getting improvements in place. Most of the real problems in Canada's health care system have been the result of right-wing politicians' meddling. Folks like Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell have done a lot of damage to a system that used to work much better. Mike |
On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Toronto has its own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it. Who mandated it? Where is this list kept? Mike |
On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system. You are so ignorant. The federal government does not fund the sustem, nor does it regulate it. It provides some funding and defines minimal standards. However, health care is a provincial jurisdiction and most funding comes from provincial governments. Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even if no "central" list is kept. Canada's must not be socialized, since there's no central control. Any government. All government. You sound very paranoid. I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. You are making this up as you go along. Too bad you don't care about facts - the discussion would be a lot shorter if you did. There is no priority list! Priorities are set by the doctors and hospitals. You can get a different result by dealing with a different doctor. Not all referring physicians have equal access to all surgeons - they are a good old boy network and some have better access to some than others. Example - Toronto's top ophthalmologist is very hard to see. He specializes in difficult cases. A friend of mine (a doctor) had a problem with his nephew and could not get an appointment with the specialist in a timely manner - his nephew ended up getting treatment with another specialist. My doctor had a concern about me and got me an appointment with the same top ophthalmologist in a week. It all depends on who you know. No government involved. No list involved. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong. No kidding - you're wrong more often than you're right. That doesn't stop you from posting your bull****. Mike |
Scott argues:
=============== They're just like any other business. How ever much of a pain med students are, the university has a lot invested in the med school program, as you yourself admit, and the only way to pay for all that infrastructure is to have students in the programs. ============== But surely you don't want to *increase* your investment in this expensive program. Please! Explain to me why it is in a university's best interests to increase the number of seats in med school (from a purely free market perspective -- which is what you insist they're responding to)? If the increased admissions come because of a government (state education department) directive -- by way of the regents -- then, of course it will happen. But please explain the economics of increasing med school admissions to me. How is that good for the university when opening more seats in the executive MBA program will yield so much more in terms of income.? frtzw906 |
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! frtzw906 |
Scott asks:
============== On these things, I'm very much a "user pay" advocate (including, if you'll recall and earler thread, agriculture, which you seem to want to support). Why not for health care and schools too? =============== Wow! That's a simple one. Because healthcare and schools are, in my world, fundamental "rights". Further, on the water issue, while I'm in favor of metering and user pay, I would provide some basic amount "free". I'm interested in metering for purposes of reducing waste. Ditto, garbage collection: a basic amount of garbage (for purposes of public health and safety) collected for free, and then a user fee above that amount. Again, I want to charge those being wasteful. frtzw906 |
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". 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). 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! frtzw906 |
I should know better than to get involved...
"Scott Weiser" wrote: From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto to another to improve my position? I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. That a different facility may not have the same number of people in line before you is irrelevant. Moreover, I have my doubts that you would be allowed, once assigned a priority at a hospital in your local community, to simply "venue shop" in another city, thereby jumping the queue of those above you in your original community. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong. You are wrong. The number of people in front of you does matter. There is no "government-assigned" priority. Each hospital that you venue shop into rates your priority and serves you as they can, with those they feel are more in need of treatment first. If you leave one hospital after being told your wait will be X hours, and go to another hospital, a nurse or doctor there might think you've got something more serious than the person who triaged you in the first hospital, you'll get a different priority. But even if they give you the same priority, if the second hospital has fewer people lined up in front of you with equal or greater priority, you'll get helped sooner. A relative was driving long distance to a family function last week. He decided to seek treatment for an infection on the way at the hospital in Clearwater BC. He was in and out in under an hour. Arriving at the family function he commented on that, and another relative, who lives in Kamloops BC, a decent sized city about an hour's drive from Clearwater, said that people in Kamloops would often drive to Clearwater to go to the hospital (for minor emergency room treatment), knowing that the two hour round trip dri ve would save them more time than that waiting in the Kamloops emergency room. For certain specialized treatments (available only at certain hospitals), you are closer to being correct. But for minor, routine stuff, you can "venue shop" all you want to try to find the shortest wait time. -Paul |
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. 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'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. 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! 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. 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? -- 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 29-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority is there not? Medical care is a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one. And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of the federal government? It is to laugh! Your ignorance continues to show every time you post. Pot, kettle, black. If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" If things are as you imply, it's a free market economy. Obviously, it's not, because many people are complaining about their inability to get served because the government won't allow them to see a doctor or go to a hospital. Exactly who in the government won't allow them? The reason that folks aren't being served is that the system is overloaded in a specific area for a specific treatment. Yup, precisely. And that occurs because the system is centrally controlled and is not a free market. It is not because the government refuses to treat people. No, they just cut funding so that the services are not available. Same result though. Providing unlimited resources in every area is not efficient. Indeed. Why not let the free market control that? The taxpayers have indicated that they want to see better service in many areas, but the politicians have been dragging their heels on getting improvements in place. Thus, the government IS "refusing to treat people" by denying funding for the necessary improvements. Thanks for proving my thesis! 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... -- 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 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system. You are so ignorant. The federal government does not fund the sustem, nor does it regulate it. Sure it does. It provides some funding and defines minimal standards. It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care and when. However, health care is a provincial jurisdiction and most funding comes from provincial governments. And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even if no "central" list is kept. Canada's must not be socialized, since there's no central control. Sure there is. Any government. All government. You sound very paranoid. Nah, just realistic. I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. You are making this up as you go along. Too bad you don't care about facts - the discussion would be a lot shorter if you did. Hey, I said it was my guess. You're the one who replied. There is no priority list! Of course there is, and the teenage girl and old guy with bad knees are on the bottom of it. Priorities are set by the doctors and hospitals. You can get a different result by dealing with a different doctor. Not all referring physicians have equal access to all surgeons - they are a good old boy network and some have better access to some than others. Not according to the AP. I believe the AP, not you. Example - Toronto's top ophthalmologist is very hard to see. He specializes in difficult cases. A friend of mine (a doctor) had a problem with his nephew and could not get an appointment with the specialist in a timely manner - his nephew ended up getting treatment with another specialist. My doctor had a concern about me and got me an appointment with the same top ophthalmologist in a week. It all depends on who you know. No government involved. No list involved. Did the nephew require hospitalization and surgery? If not, your anecdote is irrelevant. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong. No kidding - you're wrong more often than you're right. That doesn't stop you from posting your bull****. Nor does it keep you from eating it up with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. -- 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 argues: =============== They're just like any other business. How ever much of a pain med students are, the university has a lot invested in the med school program, as you yourself admit, and the only way to pay for all that infrastructure is to have students in the programs. ============== But surely you don't want to *increase* your investment in this expensive program. Please! Explain to me why it is in a university's best interests to increase the number of seats in med school (from a purely free market perspective -- which is what you insist they're responding to)? The number of seats reflects the demand for doctors. Free market economics, pure and simple. If the increased admissions come because of a government (state education department) directive -- by way of the regents -- then, of course it will happen. But please explain the economics of increasing med school admissions to me. More students, more tuition, more alumni donations. How is that good for the university when opening more seats in the executive MBA program will yield so much more in terms of income.? Not everybody wants to be an MBA. -- 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:
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 |
|
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 |
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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
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. Yup. Or on your ability to convince someone else to pay for your care based on their altruistic instincts. Good system. It was deemed, after considerable debate, to be inferior to a system which would insure everyone. Unfortunately, your experiment is failing, as socialistic systems always do, because of the "free rider" syndrome. 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. It's just go bankrupt and be unable to provide *any* service. -- 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 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. I didn't say it did. Unless mandated by governments to do so (excluding the case of private universities), I doubt any unversities would run med schools. Our government doesn't mandate anything. Since tuition does NOT cover the costs of educating doctors, please explain the economics again. More students, more tuition, more alumni donations, more government subsidies. No students, no tuition, no alumni donations, no government subsidies. Pretty simple, really. -- 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 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. Nah. You just evade the issues with pettifoggery. But that's OK. At least you're getting an education about the Cnadian system. Good on USENET. Well, somebody's getting an education anyway. -- 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 states:
============= And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. ================= Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national healthcare system? Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that opts out (or tries to opt out). I hear Jeopardy music in the background..... Scotty, your time is running out!!!! frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote: I should know better than to get involved... .....but you just can't help yourself... Don't apologize, it's okay to admit your an addict. "Scott Weiser" wrote: From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto to another to improve my position? I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. That a different facility may not have the same number of people in line before you is irrelevant. Moreover, I have my doubts that you would be allowed, once assigned a priority at a hospital in your local community, to simply "venue shop" in another city, thereby jumping the queue of those above you in your original community. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong. You are wrong. The number of people in front of you does matter. There is no "government-assigned" priority. Each hospital that you venue shop into rates your priority and serves you as they can, with those they feel are more in need of treatment first. If you leave one hospital after being told your wait will be X hours, and go to another hospital, a nurse or doctor there might think you've got something more serious than the person who triaged you in the first hospital, you'll get a different priority. But even if they give you the same priority, if the second hospital has fewer people lined up in front of you with equal or greater priority, you'll get helped sooner. But, each hospital is required to abide by the prioritization guidelines set by the government, are they not? Thus, there is still a government-controlled priority list. Parse it any way you please, but if the government IN ANY WAY sets policy for admitting or serving patients, even in a general guidelines document or by so much as saying something to the effect of "doctors shall treat patients according to the priority of the illness", as to what the priority of treatment is, the whole system is "government controlled." A relative was driving long distance to a family function last week. He decided to seek treatment for an infection on the way at the hospital in Clearwater BC. He was in and out in under an hour. Arriving at the family function he commented on that, and another relative, who lives in Kamloops BC, a decent sized city about an hour's drive from Clearwater, said that people in Kamloops would often drive to Clearwater to go to the hospital (for minor emergency room treatment), knowing that the two hour round trip dri ve would save them more time than that waiting in the Kamloops emergency room. For certain specialized treatments (available only at certain hospitals), you are closer to being correct. But for minor, routine stuff, you can "venue shop" all you want to try to find the shortest wait time. But you still get prioritized based on government standards, no matter what. The hospital administrator is not legally free to decide to admit you for an infected hangnail if there is anyone of higher priority in line in front of you, right? Government control, pure and simple. -- 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 explains:
=============== 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. ================= Can you say FBI? Is that not a "national" police agency? So that's your best explanation? And how did you come up with the "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." I trust you have evidence thereof. In what way are the provinces "more under the control...."? Examples please.... OH BOY! This is going to be good. I can't wait! Rubbing my hands in anticipation, frtzw906 |
Scott:
============= More students, more tuition, more alumni donations, more government subsidies. No students, no tuition, no alumni donations, no government subsidies. Pretty simple, really. =========== But WHY med schools?! They're so damned expensive to set up and run! And please, forget about "alumni donations". Yeah! Right! We'll rely on donations to fund our med school. GOOD LUCK! You're losing it Scotty! And as to "Our government doesn't mandate anything." Are you quite sure? Are you saying that although the government funds Whazzits State University and the University of Whazzit State, this state government exercises "no" control over what happens there? How positively generous. frtzw906 |
Scott:
================ Well, somebody's getting an education anyway. ================== No thanks required. Think nothing of it. frtzw906 |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/31/05 12:19 AM: 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. You haven't established this, and I still don't see your point. Fortunately, I don't know that it really matters. 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. If you'd just skipped the weird crap about landlords and renters, we could have cut to this chase many moons ago. 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. Not in this thread. 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? Are you going to install spy cameras at the donut shop? Or develop extensive new pre-admittance hospital tests to decide if someone has been eating too many salted cured meets and evaluate whether this cause their heart problems? The whole thing is ridiculous. 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. I know you are. 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. I'm not the one carrying the gun! LOL. 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. Why? You are propsing a tax on all consumer goods which would obviously affect all producers and sellers of consumer goods, not just Wal-Mart. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote:
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. Same in Canada. The RCMP only has national jurisdiction in some areas, like narcotics, and crimes in airports. (I'm sure there are a few more.) Really a very narrow jurisdiction. In some places, the RCMP do highway patrol and even city policing, but in those places, the provincial and/or municpal governments have hired the RCMP to be their police forces. And if they wanted to, they could form their own and be rid of the mounties. When I lived in Ontario, the only place I ever saw RCMP was at airports. Ontario has its own provincial police for highway patrol (as does Quebec), and small towns that don't want to form their own police hire the OPP rather than the mounties. -Paul |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com