On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times. However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't. You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If you disagree,
feel free to refute it.


This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times.

Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be
somewhat less accommodating to you.

However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Nah. It's up to you to refute them. I've got the AP on my side, which will
do just fine till you come up with some credible refutation.


Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't.

Do you? I'm not so sure. Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying.

You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital?

--
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 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than usual! LOL.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so,
it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section
of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If
you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than
usual! LOL.
=====================
The fool that can't refute what is said has spoken, eh?
Still don't have anything...

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/25/05 12:13 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so,
it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section
of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If
you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than
usual! LOL.
=====================
The fool that can't refute what is said has spoken, eh?
Still don't have anything...

LOL. Keep playing the fool.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/25/05 12:13 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser
at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so,
it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and
section
of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If
you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than
usual! LOL.
=====================
The fool that can't refute what is said has spoken, eh?
Still don't have anything...

LOL. Keep playing the fool.
=================
LOL Right! I am playing you for the fool you are. Thanks for
admitting it.

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I find it credible

Given your track record for believing in bull****, that means
nothing.

I've long since lost count of the number of times you are willing
to make a claim that you refuse to back up. Your credibility = 0.

Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be
somewhat less accommodating to you.

Prove it - I've challenged you on this stuff many times and you still
remain incapable or to scared to even attempt it.

Nah. It's up to you to refute them.

I've never heard of such a law. How do I prove something that
doesn't exist? Your claim - your burden of proof, coward.

Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying.

Prove it.

So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital?

Yes, dickhead, I've already said that it does.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I find it credible

Given your track record for believing in bull****, that means
nothing.

And yet you cannot refute the author.


I've long since lost count of the number of times you are willing
to make a claim that you refuse to back up. Your credibility = 0.

What makes you think I care how you judge my credibility?


Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be
somewhat less accommodating to you.

Prove it - I've challenged you on this stuff many times and you still
remain incapable or to scared to even attempt it.

Nah, I've done so many time. You just don't like the answers, so you resort
to ad hominem insults because you've got nothing probative to say.


Nah. It's up to you to refute them.

I've never heard of such a law.

Your ignorance is legendary.

How do I prove something that
doesn't exist?

That you are ignorant does not prove the non-existence of the law.

Your claim - your burden of proof, coward.

Lame.


Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying.

Prove it.

Why would I bother?


So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital?

Yes, dickhead, I've already said that it does.

I don't think so. How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement
you have so we can all see if you're lying.


--
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 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet you cannot refute the author

The existance of my policy is proof enough.

Of course, you believe anything you read as long as it fits your
narrow, biased view of the world. The rest of us don't believe
everything we read. But then you're a "journalist" so you
have to support other "journalist's" lies.

What makes you think I care how you judge my credibility?

If you cared at all what others think, you wouldn't lie so much.

Nah, I've done so many time.

More bull****. You just continue to make ridiculous claims and
never offer any real proof.

Your claim - your burden of proof, coward.

Lame.

You continue to evade and avoid confronting the truth.

How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement
you have so we can all see if you're lying.

You first - post a credible link to the law that you claim
exists that prevents us from buying the insurance that many
Canadians hold.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet you cannot refute the author

The existance of my policy is proof enough.

There is no proof your "policy" exists to begin with, there is merely your
assertion that it does. Furthermore, the existence of a "policy," even if
true, does not prove the point under contention, which is whether your
policy provides for hospitalization and surgical care, or whether the author
of the AP article was correct in telling us that Canada forces citizens to
use the state-funded and operated system for hospitalization and surgical
care, which results in rationing of health care and long (and sometimes
fatal) waits.


Of course, you believe anything you read as long as it fits your
narrow, biased view of the world. The rest of us don't believe
everything we read. But then you're a "journalist" so you
have to support other "journalist's" lies.

I certainly have more reason to believe a credible, accredited AP journalist
more than a Netwit such as yourself, who not only can't prove anything, but
can't even formulate a rational argument or rebuttal.

How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement
you have so we can all see if you're lying.

You first - post a credible link to the law that you claim
exists that prevents us from buying the insurance that many
Canadians hold.

I already did. You rejected the source. You didn't disprove the claims made
by that source, however. The truth is easy to find, if you care to look.
Fact is I have looked it up, and the AP reporter was quite correct. No
supplemental insurance policy in Canada will allow you to " jump the queue"
and obtain hospitalization or surgical treatment ahead of others higher on
the priority list.

And you can't prove otherwise.

--
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