"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
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

Another lie by Scottie-poo debunked:
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consp...pplemental.php

Mark

Weiser in commenting on Karl Polanyi states:
==============
The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The
market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans
are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is
an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.
===============

Polanyi's point is that if a polity operates or claims to operate
according to the principles of the free market, then that "free market"
is not so free because, by law, it is imposed on the people. His
contention is that people are by nature, cooperative beings who seek
protection. That is their natural tendency. Thus, if you want to
"force" them out of these natural tendencies, then that's exactly what
it takes - force.

You suggest that market systems are "entirely natural and logical
result of basic human instincts.". I wonder.

Do you think the unemployed in America's rust belt or in the auto
industry would concur? Do they believe that they should be denied what
Polanyi would argue is their natural desire for protection? Surely not.

Right now, Canada and the USA are embroiled in a cross-border trade
dispute havng to do with softwood lumber. In this particular case, the
American government has circled the wagons and done exactly what
Polanyi says people/nations naturally do -- they opted for a protective
stance as opposed to the free market stance.

From my perspective, whether nations adopt and enforce either
protectionism or free enterprise depends on who, within that society
has the power to control the political system.

frtzw906

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
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

Another lie by Scottie-poo debunked:
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consp...pplemental.php

Mark
=======================
LOL I think you should read it before you post it. He never
said that there was 'no' supplimental insurance, just what it
coves. Guess you missed that part, eh?

Here's the first clue, irst line...
"..Many residents of any given province in Canada choose to
purchase health insurance for medical services which are not
provided by the provincial health plan..."

Having the insuance isn't going to get you the required hospital
treatment if it's covered, in due time, by the health Canada
system.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 5:21 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.

It's all about levelling the playing field.

When you "level the field," you remove all the peaks to be conquered and you
drive the opportunities to excel into the ground.

Giving a child an education and health care is not going to deprive them of
motivation to seek a better life.

Level playing fields are
for soccer, not life. It is the adversities we face in life that cause us to
succeed. The lower on the mountain you start, the greater the reward you
reap when you reach the summit. Helicoptering people to the top of Everest
in order to grant grandma in her wheelchair a "level playing field" devalues
the struggle of actually climbing the mountain.

LOL. There's plenty of struggle left to emerge from poverty even if you can
go to school and not have your arm fall off if you get an infection.

Not everyone is destined for fame and fortune, and it's ridiculous to try to
ensure that every child will be successful.

Not ridiculous to give them the fundamental tools to be succesful - such as
literacy and health - and leave the rest up to them.

One of the worst things we do to
our children is the systematic, socialistic excision of competition from
education. From soccer leagues that don't keep score to banning running
races because somebody has to lose, this anti-competetive "level playing
field" agenda is destroying the motivation for innovation and excellence
that helps the poor become not-poor.

Perhaps not playing competitive soccer is not really the number one barrier
they are facing.

That's a lot of what having a
society is all about Scotty. Making sure that every child - regardless of
family situation - can access education and healthcare is fundamental to
giving kids a chance at the type of life others are simply born into.

The question is how far down that road society can go without destroying
itself through "leveling" everyone out.

Let's start with decent schools and health care for everyone, and see if it
results in kids in poverty somehow ending up worse off, shall we?

As I said, my argument is not about children and their opportunities, and I
have agreed that society has an obligation to support innocent children. My
argument is against socialized medicine for adults, and I've stated that
public education frequently fails to provide an adequate education for many
children *because* it is socialized, and that private education is far more
effective because it provides the stimulus to succeed that public education
does not.

LOL. Is it possible that private education is far more effective because
those who have the means to access it have advantages that those who do not
have the means to access it are lacking?

Yes, sure enough, put a bunch of kids living in poverty into a shabby school
with shabby teachers and drug dealers roaming the halls, and yes, they are
probably not going to go to Harvard like Little Lord Scottleroy on the other
side of the tracks.

Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"

I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A
society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and
health care is a society deserving of implosion.

Fine. Now, by calling it an "entitlement," you remove the offensive burden
of calling it a "right" because an "entitlement" is something that the
government can be compelled, by it's bosses, the people, to provide. The
distinction is important because the offending party in any failure to
provide an "entitlement" is the body which "entitled" people to claim the
benefit, not the individual who is compelled to do something in support of
another individual's "rights."

However, I do warn that the "do it for the children" argument is a
dangerous one indeed. I believe more is required to justify legislation than
merely "do it for the children." There needs to be some overall social
benefit that outweighs the potential negative effects of the legislation.

I should be, but I'm not suprised to find an American who believes that
there is no obvious justification for children learning to read and write
and to not have their left foot rot off because they can't get health care.

That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any
tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?

It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it.

A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child
that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry.

It's the parent's duty to fight for their children's future.

As you seem to have recognized, that too is irrelevant to the child and not
in their control.

Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.

Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about?

Figure it out.

Why? You said it, you explain it.

Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to
poverty?"

From their parents.

And if they don't learn it from their parents?

is all they know is poverty?

Nobody can live in North America these days and "only know poverty." Every
human being on this continent is deluged with the knowledge of prosperity
and success.

Oh, you mean just because some little kid can see rich people on TV, that
should give her the tools she needs to overcome the barriers of illiteracy
and disease?

Geez you are dense. If they are
illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into
Harvard and onto the presidency?

They'd better try. Many have, and many have succeeded. If you go to far in
"leveling they playing field" children will have no reason to succeed on
their own. This is not to say that that poor children do not deserve support
and encouragement towards success.

LOL. Giving a child the chance to learn to read and write and survive into
adulthoos is hardly going to far...unless you are an unbelievably selfish
prig.


FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.

Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.

Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county.

No, the parents should.

And if they don't?

You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I believe in a hand up, not a handout.

Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are
sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving
a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life.

I don't disagree. I'm more concerned about adults.

Oh, hell's bells, I'm with you on the problem of adult responsibility. Heck,
look at all the citizens that don't even exercise their basic obligations as
citizens, and let a twit like Bush get re-elected. Isn't it frightening how
few Americans bother to vote?

Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all
they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and
he
can feed the world.

How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.

I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public
education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free
public
education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else.

If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.

It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all
children if selfish prigs can opt out.

Ah, now we finally come to the real issue. Why is it "not possible" for
society to provide these benefits if everyone doesn't participate? Is this
really true? I think not. For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.

They didn't opt out, they are apparently part of some archaic system where
the only support for education comes from property taxes.

And then there's charity. A huge number of hospitals in both countries are
private Catholic hospitals funded by the Catholic church and they provide
free health care for the indigent.

Geezus, giving someone the only choice of going to a Catholic institution is
cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.

There's lots of charitable foundations
and organizations, and private donors who would very likely be able to
provide necessary medical care to indigent children without the
participation of the government...at lower expense to the public.

You can't download fundamental societal responsibilities to charities, not
if you don't want a grossly fragmented and grossly unjust society.

So, it is self-evidently not true that it is "not possible for a society to
provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt
out."

It is quite true. You aren't going to have universal services without
universal support.

Moreover, your claim is simply untrue. There are lots of people who "opt
out" of paying taxes, including, interestingly, the poor themselves, and yet
society continues to provide services to them.

Clearly I am talking about those with the means to contribute.

What your claim really means is that YOU don't like the idea that other
people can "opt out" because it offends YOUR sense of fairness and
socialistic egalitarianism.

I'm not a socialist and never have been.

All I want is literacy and health for children so they have a chance.

You think that everybody should suffer equally
on that "level playing field." Unfortunately, even in your Canadian Utopia,
not everybody plays on the same field or pays their "fair share." That's
life.

I never suggested the playing field is equal or can ever be equal. I just
want children to have a reasonable chance to get in the game.

There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for
the
very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or
merely
require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs
sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged
explicitly
to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry.

The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and
grab
one.

I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.

I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to
education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own
opportunities.

Feel free to open up your wallet and adopt the whole family if you like.

That approach obviously isn't working. If you believe, as I do and as do
most Canadians and Americans, that education and health care are fundamental
rights, then you don't leave it up to random acts of kindness by strangers.

If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship
captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his
teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that.

LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.

Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians?

Evidently, given the fact that a million illegal immigrants a month flood
into the country to take these jobs.

Would the fact that they are paid at levels and work in conditions that
would be illegal for american citizens have something to do with that?


I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant
should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will
need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those
born into wealth.

And yet you've not demonstrated that society is unable to provide those
benefits at private expense rather than public expense. Private operations
are *always* more efficiently and economically run than government
operations.

Yes, a private school is likely to be more efficient and more economical, in
my opinion (although public schools, particularly where interference from
governing bureaucrats is limited, can be very effective).

But the private school is not going to serve all children. It is only going
to serve the children who can afford to make the school profitable.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the
graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that
potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure
and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

You didn't really answer the question.

Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

Sure I did. It was a dodge.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates?

Yes or no.

Asked and answered.

No, you dodged. And you still are.

FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?

Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write
his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass
grade eight on his own merits.

And yet he graduated from an Ivy-league college

As I said, money can buy anything if you have enough. It doesn't hurt to
have a family name that carries weight either.

flew fighter jets in the
military (which I'm betting you've never done)

He didn't seem to do much of it either.

was the governor of Texas
and is now the President of the United States.

Yes, I'm aware.

I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and
ignorant proclamations.

I stand by my assertion that if forced to survive on his own merits, he
would have difficulty passing grade eight.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:09 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come
across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark

What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other
nasty
commie stuff.

Precisely correct. Your choice of whether to save someone or not is your
choice. Government cannot mandate that you do so, particularly if it puts
you at risk. Whether you can live with yourself is, of course, a moral and
ethical dilemma you will have to deal with. Also, society may choose to
reject your reasons for not helping and deem you to be selfish or cowardly
and withhold approval and heap upon you opprobrium, but it may not compel
you to act under penalty of law.

The danger of "mandatory" rescue laws is that when the law requires others
to put themselves at risk to save someone, the chances are greatly
increased
that the government will decide to regulate dangerous activities so as to
"balance" the risks to rescuers with you "right" to endanger yourself.

This leads to things like the closure of whitewater venues deemed "too
dangerous."

Again, be careful what you wish for.

My example was throwing someone a life preserver.

Which you're entitled to do. But be careful about using the law to mandate
that anyone else do so.

You be careful. Then again, you could always take out your gun and shoot
them instead.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:16 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?

Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your
needs"?

You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or
be branded a liar.

Brand away rick. Er, Scotty.

It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted
what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights.


If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other
adults.

It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share.

Oddly enough, I've never met one Canadian who complains of unwillingly
contributing to universal health care.

I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as
fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that
comes
with it.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that
burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?

They'd have been better off not being shot.

None of which has anything to do with education and health care as
fundamental rights.

Sure it does. You're just incapable understanding the link.

Your just so insane that the link works for you.


You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

Sure you can. Charity begins at home.

Charity cannot provide universal education and health care.


I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a
chance
to learn how to read.

Then give them that chance.

But, you have yet to produce any rational argument as to why others should
be required to do so.

Because children will die without medicine and if they can't read their
ability to participate in society will be severely limited. Sorry if that's
not rational enough for you.

That states a couple of not-very-accurate presumptions
it does not comprise a rational argument.

ROFL!

I guess the children should learn to make their own medicine, right Scotty!

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.

Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.

What ever made you think that?

Your preceding statement.

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, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost.

Cheers,
Wilf

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/24/05 11:27 PM:

KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost.

Cheers,
Wilf

I suppose so, I'm just fascinated by his selective obsession with rights and
obligations.

He comes across as the type of guy with a big bomb shelter in the basement
that hopes and prays for a nuclear holocaust.

"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...