Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BCITORGB wrote: Michael says: ============ Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't get when you need it. What a bargain! Bull**** from weiser once again. He obviously can't read or think. ============== Further, Weiser has difficulty with math... even using his figures, I reckon that's 40% of 48%.... but, hey, that wouldn't sound as dramatic. What a twit! But I just don't get the point of his post. He's living in paradise and happy about it. And we're living with a system that we clearly like so much that we voted (well, I didn't, but apparently many Canadians did) Tommy Douglas the most important Canadian personage (living or dead), on a TV poll. [Info for Scott: Tommy Douglas = father of Canadian universal medicine] Why does Scott worry about how much tax we pay? As far as I can tell, Americans pay between 35% to 40% in taxes, depending on the state. First, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it cost much more money to govern 30+ million spread out over a huge country as opposed to 300+ million spread over a merely big country. So likely our tax bills ought to be somewhat higher. And look, on top of everything, our guys throw in healthcare. What do the Yanks get thrown in? frtzw906 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. I am glad that you are so much better with number than I am! I still maintain you are not an ENTP. Maybe an ESFJ, they like numbers and everything in order, not very good inventors though, or working with power tools. How's that rack coming along! But I don't want to interfere here with this dance, so I will step aside! TnT |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. And you know what, if the critique were coming from someone in Australia, or Germany, or France or whereever we could lean something about how to do things better, I wouldn't mind so much. But what can we learn from the American system? First, let's be clear: we tried the American system and rejected it. it's not like Canada doesn't have experience with privatized medicine. that's what we had before we went universal. As to what we can learn; that's simple. America is good at providing excellent care, quickly, if (and this is a huge IF), you can pay for it. I don't need to know much more about the American system than what Frederick has outlined. That's enough to convince me that it needs fixing in a bad way. There's no way a decent, hard-working, family should have to live with such stress. What a stupid way to treat the people who make your system work and make your country great. It's dehumanizing. It's STUPID! What about your personal case, Tink? How much of your monthly income goes to medical premiums? Are you concerned about losing your coverage? frtzw906 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... 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. ================== And just where was that done? Reporting on the fact that people die while waiting must be news for you and kman. Think of it as a public service. Knowledge is a good thing, putting your head in the sand and pretending otherwise is dangerous in this case. And you know what, if the critique were coming from someone in Australia, or Germany, or France or whereever we could lean something about how to do things better, I wouldn't mind so much. But what can we learn from the American system? First, let's be clear: we tried the American system and rejected it. it's not like Canada doesn't have experience with privatized medicine. that's what we had before we went universal. As to what we can learn; that's simple. America is good at providing excellent care, quickly, if (and this is a huge IF), you can pay for it. I don't need to know much more about the American system than what Frederick has outlined. That's enough to convince me that it needs fixing in a bad way. There's no way a decent, hard-working, family should have to live with such stress. What a stupid way to treat the people who make your system work and make your country great. It's dehumanizing. It's STUPID! What about your personal case, Tink? How much of your monthly income goes to medical premiums? Are you concerned about losing your coverage? frtzw906 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. And you know what, if the critique were coming from someone in Australia, or Germany, or France or whereever we could lean something about how to do things better, I wouldn't mind so much. But what can we learn from the American system? First, let's be clear: we tried the American system and rejected it. Yeah, freedom and liberty are SO unnecessary... it's not like Canada doesn't have experience with privatized medicine. that's what we had before we went universal. And that's what you'll have shortly, after your socialized system fails completely. As it is, many Canadians are coming to the US to get immediate medical care they can't get in Canada. I'll take expensive medical care I can get on demand to cheap medical care I can't get when I need it. I'll figure out how to pay for it later. As to what we can learn; that's simple. America is good at providing excellent care, quickly, if (and this is a huge IF), you can pay for it. Which makes it a good idea to stay healthy or save a lot of money against future medical problems. Why should anyone else have to bail you out if you don't use good judgment? I don't need to know much more about the American system than what Frederick has outlined. That's enough to convince me that it needs fixing in a bad way. There's no way a decent, hard-working, family should have to live with such stress. Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them? What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people? What a stupid way to treat the people who make your system work and make your country great. It's dehumanizing. It's STUPID! It's life. Sometimes you die. So what? Big deal. There'll be another one just like you along in a few years. Death comes to us all, eventually. Get used to 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Weiser on caring for others:
============== Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them? What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people? =============== Hmmm.... where to begin? Let's start by throwing out the term socialism and using community instead. I think caring for your neighbors is a part of what it means to be a member of a community. My elderly neighbor occasionally needs a ride to the hospital. I offer to drive her. I don't ask her whether she might not have avoided her maladies if she'd taken better care of her health in earlier years! I just drive her. Another elderly neighbor has difficulty getting her trash can to the street on collection day. My kids or I take on this task. This is what it means to be a member of a community. Universal medical insurance is also about community. It's about giving a damn about your fellow human. Spit out the bile, Scott. frtzw906 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser on caring for others: ============== Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them? What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people? =============== Hmmm.... where to begin? Let's start by throwing out the term socialism and using community instead. Let's not. Let's call socialism exactly what it is. I think caring for your neighbors is a part of what it means to be a member of a community. I agree. The difference is that I believe that it's up to YOU whether you choose to do so out of altruism, guilt or whatever emotion you choose. What I don't agree with is the idea that unwilling partners can be required to "care for" their neighbors by having the government forcibly take money from them to give to someone who is most likely not a neighbor at all, but is more likely to be some alcoholic with a damaged liver who got that way not because he was concerned about the "community" but because he was interested in going to hell in his own way while expecting other people to pay for it. My elderly neighbor occasionally needs a ride to the hospital. I offer to drive her. I don't ask her whether she might not have avoided her maladies if she'd taken better care of her health in earlier years! I just drive her. Another elderly neighbor has difficulty getting her trash can to the street on collection day. My kids or I take on this task. This is what it means to be a member of a community. Good for you. That's very charitable and altruistic of you. Nothing whatever wrong with your doing so. You are free to spend as much of your time and money as you wish doing so. You are even free to get together with like-minded neighbors and pool money through some organization to hire people do do it. What's wrong, however, is to use the Mace of State to force someone who doesn't freely choose to participate in that altruism, to pay for what you think "community" ought to be. Universal medical insurance is also about community. It's about giving a damn about your fellow human. No, it's about coercive force, sometimes at the point of a gun. Down here in the USA, we have a little right we call the right to "freedom of association." Under that right, we have the right to freely gather together with whomever we please, whenever we please, in a peaceable manner. Inherent in that right is the equally protected right of *dis*association. Just as we are free to associate with others, we are free NOT to associate with them, and that includes the right to NOT be required to subsidize or support their particular lifestyle. For example, I have no interest in paying for the medical expenses of those who contract AIDS as a result of engaging in unprotected sex. I should not be forced to do so by the government, whether directly or through socialized medicine. They did the deed, they get to suffer the consequences. That may result in unfortunate circumstances for them, but I didn't do the deed, so why should I be made financially liable for their bad behavior? Spit out the bile, Scott. Altruism coming from the barrel of the taxman's gun is not altruism, it's slavery and oppression. I'll be altruistic and charitable to those whom *I* deem worthy of my charity and altruism, not who some government flack thinks is worthy, thank you very much. -- 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General |