in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/26/05 2:54 PM:

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."

Demanding less wasteful, more efficient, and more effective public schools -
and getting off your ass and contributing to that - is different from
whining about it and wanting them shut down so you can keep more of your own
money.

Most of them are far more
concerned about the education of children than you are.

Oh dear, you aren't making a judgement about me are you? How do you know
what my level of concern is?

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.

It will result in education for the wealthy. There is no free market
incentive to provide education to the poor.

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?

Free market economics is quite simple.

It also doesn't exist anywhere.

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.

There's no profit in educating people who can't afford to pay.

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.

How do you define free market economics Scotty?

What is it you see in your definition that leads you to believe that private
sector educational insitutions will be motivated to educate the poor in a
free market economy?

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/26/05 3:09 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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?

Neither. I'm saying that no amount of health care insurance in Canada will
get you into a hospital or surgical suite ahead of anyone higher on the
priority list than you. That it may cover all sorts of things that Canada's
socialized medical system doesn't cover is beside the point. If you cannot
use your insurance to guarantee you a room or surgery when YOU need it, not
when the government decides to provide it to you, it's nothing more than
palliative and gives you nothing more than a few perks in the hospital,
provided you don't die waiting to be admitted.

If you are saying that supplemental health care insurance in Canada won't
allow me to skip ahead of some other person in the emergency room, that is
quite true.

My old medical insurance provided that I could go to any hospital in the
world and get immediate treatment, including admission and surgery as
necessary, without any delay, without any permission from anybody, and it
would pay the bills.

You only get to go into the hospital if some government bureaucrat decides
you "need" to do so

You don't have a clue. I can go to the hospital right now and see a doctor.
But it would make more sense to go to one of the nice GP clinics unless it's
a serious emergency.

and you "need" to do so more urgently than somebody else.

Well, yeah, like any hospital, there are only so many doctors on duty. If a
busload of kids crashes and they are coming in with burns and severed limbs
and I am there with my sprained ankle, you are right, I will probably have
to wait.

If they don't think you "need" to be admitted, or if they don't have
room, you're ****ed, and you have to come to the US and pay the full price
for your care.

Having lived here for 30+ years I have yet to meet one person where this has
ever happened. I have read about a small number of cases where people have
sought specialized treatment in the US.

Have you ever been to Canada? If so, where? Did you ever visit a doctor's
office, clinic, or hospital?

Most people here have a family doctor that they see regularly. I have one.
His office has an after hours service as well. If it is regular business
hours, I can get an appointment with him pretty much whenever I want one. If
it is after hours, I can see one of the other doctors that he shares his
practice with for after hours care. About two blocks from his office is a
nice hospital, where I have been, and friends and family have been, for
everything from what turned out to be stomach flu to one of my best friends
that had cancer (with the help of many fine doctors he beat it).

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/26/05 3:19 PM:

KMAN:
=============
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.
===============

I too was surprised by that stat. Interestingly (my anecdotal
observation only), the further east one travels in Canada, the more one
is likely to encounter smoking. Here on the left coast, smokers are
definitely an anomaly.

Wilf

Yes, but there is more spandex.

rick reckons:
==============
By the way you've been reasoning that means making sure that
everyone again waits weeks, months, years for teatment.
====================

Not at all. How do you figure that?

rick again:
===================
If you were aware of the exceptions, then why have you been
arguing like there were none?
===============

Where did you see me arguing as though there were none? Everyone (in BC
anyway, if they follow media reports) is aware of the WCB exemptions,
and many are opposed to it. As I said: a flaw, so let's fix it.

frtzw906

rick reports:
============
Despite the jingoistic spewing of others, here is a ase of a man,
not a teen, waiting for new knees. 2 1/2 years. It's so bad
that it is now bone on bone and his pain meds have been upped to
morphine.
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/?nopic...ate=2004/09/15

This guy isn't willing to wait. Why would you support that he
has to?
================

rick, that's an interesting article that presents us with a number of
factors to consider.

First of all, we're not exactly talking an urban setting here.
Penticton is a small town which has only one orthopedic surgeon. THIS
surgeon's waiting list is 290-plus. Further, let's examine why there
might be that many on the waiting list. Penticton is not only an
orchard/vineyard agricultural center, but it is also a preferred
retirement center for many Canadians. Hence, there are a great many
older, retired folk in this community. Net result: high demand for
joint replacements.

I suspect the man in question, in this article, could get referred to
orthopedic surgeons in other centers (perhaps Vancouver) where there
are likely to be more orthopedic surgeons (greater supply, hence less
waiting). The guy in question, however, is unwilling to shut down his
business for a few days to have the procedure done elsewhere. At this
point, I take a Scott Weiser approach to him: "Tough ****!"

I think it unrealistic, living in a nation as sparsely populatd as
Canada, to expect every medical convenience in every nook and cranny of
this huge nation. For purposes of efficiency and economies, some
services (medical and otherwise) are only going to be available in
major centers. This guy bemoans the fact that shutting down his
business, to have the surgery done elsewhere, will cost him $220/day.
Hey, I live in an urban center, and just on house values alone I'll bet
I spend $400-$500 more per month on my mortgage than he does. The
Weiser sapproach again: "Suck it up buddy, and take a trip to Vancouver
and get your surgery done."

An interesting quote: "Binfet said it would cost $45,000 US to have the
surgery done in Bellingham, Wash., and that's for one knee only. "I
can't afford it," he said."

Hey the guy needs two knees done. That's $90,000. He can't afford it.

The bottom line is, I thinks there's much more to the story than just
the headline.

Interesting, nonetheless.

frtzw906

rick:
==============
http://www.ices.on.ca/file/14_CVA_Chapter12.pdf .
=================

Thanks also for this very informative source:

Some key points:

Urgent Coronary By-pass surgery done almost immediately... semi-urgent
had a wait of about 5 days... elective about 55 days... that doesn't
seem bad to me...

Waiting List Mortality for Cardiac Surgery in Ontario: 0.5 percent (I
have no idea how that compares with stats around the world - it's
cardiac surgery, i guess there'll always be people dying...)

Perhaps there are medical professionals out there who could answer:
should the people of Ontario be concerned by those numbers?

frtzw906

KMAN commenting on less smoking on the Left Coast:
===============
Yes, but there is more spandex.
=================

True, but also more people who can actually wear the stuff and look
good doing so. That would, however, not include me GRIN.

Make mine a double latte, eh.

Wilf

On 26-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

She's credible. You aren't.

Just because you believe anything you read doesn't make the
writer credible.

Canadian health care statutes and policy guide.

Be specific. Otherwise, we'll know you're just bull****ting again.

Mike

On 26-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

They do get
to step out of line and go to private surgical clinics instead o
waiting like the rest o the minions...

This is bull**** as well. There are a lot of folks that can go to
private clinics and avoid lines. The health care ministers
pretend that this doesn't happen.

Mike

On 26-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, your doctor recommends that you be admitted. The government determines
where you fall on the priority list.

Bull****. No government agency sets the priorities.

Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery have to wait
three years.

Prove it.

Oh, they're there, you just don't see them. They work behind the scenes
prioritizing patients and sending letters to people telling them to wait,
and apologizing if they die in the process

Paranoid fantasies on your part.

Not if you're not critical they don't.

Bull**** again.

You make this up as you go along.

Mike