On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


Prove it.

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

You prove nothing, as usual. Untol you start providing
proof of your claims, you will remain the only bull****ter
on this newsgroup.

Mike

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 3/25/05 9:36 PM:


On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does
not, by law.

Which law? Provide proof.

The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and
surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth.

Mike

What's he trying to say Mike? That we can't have health insurance? Or that
it can't be used for hospital care?

Here's what comes with a ManuLife Flex Care policy (thousands of Canadians
have one of these):

$250,000 lifetime maximum (applies to all Extended Health Care benefits)
Best Doctors ®Solutions Services - upon diagnosis of a serious illness or
injury, you can receive an evaluation of your medical records by world-class
specialists who confirm the initial diagnosis and recommend appropriate
treatment options. This fast, yet indepth review can reduce potentially
serious complications from a misdiagnosis and help your local physician
determine the proper course of action. In addition to medical advice, Best
Doctors provides the following services: treatment planning, identification
of the most appropriate care provider, and care management.
Chiropractor, Chiropodist, Osteopath, Naturopath, Podiatrist, Registered
Massage Therapist, Acupuncturist, Physiotherapist - combined maximum of $750
per anniversary year for all eight of these paramedical specialists,
including chiropractic x-rays (payable only after Government Health
Insurance Plan maximums have been reached, if applicable)
Psychologist or approved social worker - $80 maximum first visit, $65
maximum subsequent visits, 12 visit maximum per anniversary year
Homecare and Nursing, Prosthetic Appliances, Durable Medical Equipment -
combined maximum of $8,500 per anniversary year

A quick tour of http://www.coverme.com/ should make it obvious that
Canadians can purchase health insurance.

Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health; See:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2003001.htm


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

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

Frederick, thanks. Sheds useful light on the discussion.

Wilf

in article , Frederick Burroughs at
wrote on 3/25/05 10:01 PM:

Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health; See:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2003001.htm

That's an interesting read. It's amazing how close so many of the numbers
are.

I was quite surprised to find more slightly more smokers in Canada. I bet a
lot of Canadians would be surprised by that, although I remember
encountering "smoke free" shopping malls in areas of the US long before most
places in Canada caught on. I know the gap is only 2% but it still surprised
me.

The 6% gap of obesity (21% US, 15% Canadian) is quite something, I guess
SuperSize Me had it about right. I see so many Canadians lining up at Tim
Horton's (donuts) that I can't believe there's a people somewhere that could
be 6% more obese!

On 25-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote:

What's he trying to say Mike?

He's trying to say that he's always right and everyone else is always
wrong. He believes that what he says is true without having to provide
any evidence. He is, in other words, a real asshole.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

Based on what evidence, precisely?

If only I had a warrant...

But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression.

Again, based on what evidence? Or are you admitting that you're just a
brainless bigot who judges people based on some mental aberration you suffer
from?


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.

You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be
ethically and legitimately imposed on others.

It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit.

Which is your right. How do you ethically justify imposing it on others,
however? Do you have any reasoned argument in support of your position, or
are you just brainlessly parroting some socialist dogma you once heard?


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.

Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes.

They'd have been better of not being hacked to death as well.

They
were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while
alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were
sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers
as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off
with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again.

Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda
would have even been possible?

Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to
admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing.

Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the
bad ones don't.

So, because it's factually impossible to keep "bad people" from illegally
obtaining guns, or machetes, or stones, or gasoline and matches, it's okay
with you if "good people" are brutally murdered because they have been
disarmed and are incapable of defending themselves, merely in order to
comply with your impossibly stupid utopian ideal of a gun-less society?

How remarkably barbaric and abysmally stupid.


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.

Why not?

Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding
to operate one.

That's not an explanation of why, that's a tautological assertion.

When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you
think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated.

So what? Perhaps those operations and services are unneeded or improperly
run and need to be eliminated.

Perhaps society, through its unwillingness to fund these programs, is saying
that the objectives are unworthy and no longer comport with society's
beliefs about who is eligible for charity. Why is society precluded from
making such determinations?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:47 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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

Hitler declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Berlin.

Hussein declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad.

Declaring victory is not the same thing as achieving it.

I keep telling that to nuts who get mad when you tell them Bush stole the
election.


When have I ever said that?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
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.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that
there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in
an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a
per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden
on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do.

I know.

That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.

That's what selfish prigs want to do.

Not everybody who wants to eliminate government waste and inefficient,
ineffective public schools is a "selfish prig." Most of them are far more
concerned about the education of children than you are. They simply realize
that the free market, combined with a minimal amount of taxpayer-funded
stipends for the truly disadvantaged will result in a much better system of
childhood education.

I have a perfect understanding of free
market ecomomics.

Remarkable. Why is it then that you are not the world's leading economist,
to whom all others, with their imperfect understanding, go to for advice?

Could it be that you overestimate your understanding?

The outcome of applying free market economics to education
and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid
system of haves and have-nots.

Socialist twaddle.


Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

Absolutely insane.

What an erudite and reasoned rebuttal from the only person on the planet
with a "perfect understanding" of free market economics.

--
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 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