| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Canada's Health Care Crisis - update
Cheers to everyone, I hope you're enjoying paddling in Colorado while you
can, because the gravy train may be coming to an end. But more about that another time... Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's some important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News reports that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private health insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that the prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights." He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy and has become a liability to health." Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad thing. -- 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 |
Scott Weiser wrote:
Cheers to everyone, I hope you're enjoying paddling in Colorado while you can, because the gravy train may be coming to an end. But more about that another time... Ahhh Scott! Trolling RBP again, I see! :-) Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's some important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News reports that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private health insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that the prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights." He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy and has become a liability to health." Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad thing. It's a very bad thing for people who can *afford* expensive private health insurance, but a very very GOOD thing for those who cannot! ;-) And of course, it's not like no one ever dies or suffers in a private health insurance system, it just sounds speciously omniously grand to detractors thereof to say something as above! ;-) Don't worry, publicizing of the U.S. health system cannot be far away! I'm studying for my RN now! I single-handedly brought down the entire IT industry in the U.S. by getting into it and working in it for 7 years (1995 - 2002) , I wonder if I can do the same to the healthcare systems profitability now? Hee hee! John Kuthe... |
He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy and has become a liability to health." Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad thing. And we all know, of course, that Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News is known worldwide as an expert on healthcare issues and Canadian healthcare in particular ;-) |
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
Every accused has the right to council. every poor urchen has the right to die. Medicine via insurance is an intrinsically more expensive program than private medical care or social medicine. Besides that my doctor friends have their own news group. Medicine as a business so flies in the face of Hypocrites and his oath as to be extortion of the most needy by the most wealthy. |
Scott Weiser wrote:
He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy and has become a liability to health." Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad thing. There are liabilities in every system of health care. One liability for a socialized health care system in a country with a relatively healthy population (Canada) is it becomes a target for the private insurance industry. I imagine a big concern for Canadians (and a responsibility of the Canadian government) is to make sure private insurance companies don't take unfair advantage and make unearned profits in a system designed to be publicly funded. It becomes a legislative and management nightmare to make sure the health care burden is shared equivalently between the public and private sectors. There is tremendous incentive for private insurers to descend on a system where the public sector bears the bulk of the burden, and the customer base will be among the most healthy and wealthy in the population. -- "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. |
Re V. Carrol... I did not know that : I do know that the land mass
sserved ny The Canadian system is as a country one of the largest in the world. I don't delude myself into thinking I will get the same health care as our prime minister, but I know that insurance has a better return for investment than the lotery. ( that being from the bookies side, in this case our government ) I will give you an insurance health care scenario,,, Mine. A smalll accident last year injured my neck and shoulder. The other guy rear ended me as i was stopped. He was in a large van and I had a VW Golf. ( Tidy smack ) I have health coverage ( Section B ) in my car. I have Blue Cross for drugs ( Company program ) I am in physio , Massage and now Chyro. Before the guy that hit me pays a cent I have to run down my Blue Cross. Then my own section B then his section B then his liability cuts in. I am right now out about $1,000 CDN for physio because I paid for it and I have not jumped through all the hoops for Blue Cross which has long since run out. For simple medical expenses ( That have NEVER been used before this) I pay for Blue Cross, Section B, Car insurance with full coverage andthe guy that hit me has Secttion B so we have paid for 4 levels of insurance for a band aid. The paper is worth more than the medical help. Private sector is largely insurance based and private clinics cherry pick the procedures they are willing to do, Insurance companies cherry pick the clients they take on, Clinics hire doctors for proffitability what is left in a publicly in a private sector based system may not be that good. I may be wrong. But I am intitled top be wrong headed the odd time. : ) NDK and P & H make some fine kayaks though . |
A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy and has become a liability to health." Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad thing. There are liabilities in every system of health care. One liability for a socialized health care system in a country with a relatively healthy population (Canada) is it becomes a target for the private insurance industry. I imagine a big concern for Canadians (and a responsibility of the Canadian government) is to make sure private insurance companies don't take unfair advantage and make unearned profits in a system designed to be publicly funded. Nope. It was explicitly designed to be a government monopoly for reasons of socialistic egalitarianism and nothing more, by the admission of those who created the system. It becomes a legislative and management nightmare to make sure the health care burden is shared equivalently between the public and private sectors. There is tremendous incentive for private insurers to descend on a system where the public sector bears the bulk of the burden, and the customer base will be among the most healthy and wealthy in the population. The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be "regulated." -- 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 |
Scott Weiser wrote: The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be "regulated." -- That is a popular saying, but it is meaningless. The truth is we do not know. Systems that self correct typically employ some form of feedback. When the system is outside of the optimal setting, the difference from that set point moves the system back toward that setpoint. The problem with physical systems is that they exhibit inertia and this complicates the response. The inertia of the system makes them slow to respond. The lack of change in the output causes a greater correcting force than is needed, resulting in overshoot and then undershoot. Well modeled systems, (which free enterprise or any other economic system are not), can be tuned for "good responses". But only if the characteristics of the system are understood. For complex physical systems like the Earth, we are only beginning to create the simpliest of models. In climatic systems with time delays on the order of decades or centuries, we may not ever see the results of our own corrective forces, most of which are subject to political whim. In social systems, we need to worry about the effects of time delay and overshoot because they affect people. These system may ultimately converge on the best solution, but the overshoot creates the forces of political change (revolution, genocide) as well as physical change (climate, famine). Large scale systems are not the realm of the layman, nor political administrations prone to dismissing views not in league with their agendas as "Fuzzy Science". There is no avenue in today's broadcast buzz word society for serious answers to serious questions. Audiences are too tuned to receiving hollow platitudes in support of their beliefs. Our attention spans are too short. Paraphrasing Richard Feynman's response to a reporter who asked him what he did to get the Nobel Prize: "Hey buddy, if I could explain it to you in 3 minutes, it wouldn't be worth a Nobel Prize now would it?" Only when Science is free to operate outside of political reach will we even have a chance at gaining the understanding we need to live in harmony with the world. Or, as some would say, save it. Blakely Blakely LaCroix r.b.p clique member #86. Minneapolis, Minnesota. USA "The best adventure is yet to come" |
According to Scott:
"The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be 'regulated.' " Assuming efficiency is your prime objective, then there might be a modicum of truth therein. But suppose you had other objectives? Is the free market necessarily the "best" (determined by whatever your ojectives are) way to regulate? |
Universally when it comes to forcing people to pay for other people's bad health. Your sense of humanity is touching. You'd probably stand there and watch a guy drown on the river rather than trying to save him, too. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
According to Scott: "The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be 'regulated.' " Assuming efficiency is your prime objective, then there might be a modicum of truth therein. But suppose you had other objectives? Is the free market necessarily the "best" (determined by whatever your ojectives are) way to regulate? Usually. Almost always when it comes to government intervention in private commerce. Universally when it comes to forcing people to pay for other people's bad health. -- 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 |
Scott Weiser wrote: Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's some important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News reports that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private health insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that the prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights." He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy and has become a liability to health." Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad thing. -- It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial complex is not in crisis. Only patients are.... |
"donquijote1954" wrote in message oups.com... Scott Weiser wrote: Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's some important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News reports that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private health insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that the prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights." He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy and has become a liability to health." Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad thing. -- It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial complex is not in crisis. Only patients are.... Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so the rest of the world can just go to hell. |
george conklin wrote: It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial complex is not in crisis. Only patients are.... Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so the rest of the world can just go to hell. They only count as customers, rather shortchanged though. |
"donquijote1954" wrote in message oups.com... george conklin wrote: It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial complex is not in crisis. Only patients are.... Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so the rest of the world can just go to hell. They only count as customers, rather shortchanged though. Medicine is the only business where customers are kept waiting for hours so the providers can run their offices any way they choose and you cannot say anything about it or you are being 'rude.' You are supposed to sit there for 1-2 hours and SMILE during your 3-minute quickie visit. |
george conklin wrote: "donquijote1954" wrote in message oups.com... george conklin wrote: It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial complex is not in crisis. Only patients are.... Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so the rest of the world can just go to hell. They only count as customers, rather shortchanged though. Medicine is the only business where customers are kept waiting for hours so the providers can run their offices any way they choose and you cannot say anything about it or you are being 'rude.' You are supposed to sit there for 1-2 hours and SMILE during your 3-minute quickie visit. On the bright side they provide you with fancy magazines. Nobody will questions a thief with such great attention to detail. |
A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:
Universally when it comes to forcing people to pay for other people's bad health. Your sense of humanity is touching. You'd probably stand there and watch a guy drown on the river rather than trying to save him, too. Whether I would try to save him depends on a number of factors, including whether I'm capable of doing so without losing my own life. That's a judgment I get to make, and not a decision that you can compel me to make. Something you learn as an EMT is that you're not responsible for the trouble other people get themselves into. You try to do the best you can to help them, but sometimes people die. If you take on the guilt of other people's bad judgment or ill luck, you won't last long in emergency services. And there's little sense in two people dying because a rescuer tried to do the impossible...or merely something he's not capable of doing. Demanding that a non-swimmer to dive into a raging rapid to save a kayaker who is trapped underwater is stupid. Besides the obvious futility involved, the kayaker took on the risk with full knowledge of the potential for death, so it's unreasonable for him to expect others to risk their lives to save him. Now, if a person WANTS to try to save someone, that's completely different. But, the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck. If you want to ASK them to help, that's perfectly fine, so long as you don't gripe if they decline. -- 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 |
Query to Scott, who claims:
============ the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck. =========== Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction? |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Query to Scott, who claims: ============ the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck. =========== Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction? Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument. It may well be wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck in other areas...or not. However, what we are discussing at the moment is health care. I note that you don't dispute my statement. Do I therefore take it that you agree with me? -- 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 |
Scott Weiser wrote:
: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: : Query to Scott, who claims: : ============ : the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to : COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad : luck. : =========== : : Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it : is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those : areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction? : : Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that : it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the : logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument. Scotty; First, I'm guessing "wron" is "wrong"... right? The concept behind all insurance is some people are paying for someone elses claim... otherwise, we'd all be paying cash every time we visit the doc for anything... surgery too... same with car insurance, homeowners insurance... life insurance... You, your company (or your trust fund) pay $'s hoping that you will pay in less than you use in services... We the taxpayers also help fund this because Uncle Sam makes it a tax deduction for companies that are paying for all or part of a employee's health insurance costs... It's the same with taxes... when it comes to road taxes, smaller trucks subsidize larger trucks, smaller cars subsidize larger cars like your hummer (if you still have it) when it comes to paying for our nations roads. It's the American way to expect someone else to foot at least part of your bill... : It may well be wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad : genetics or bad luck in other areas...or not. However, what we are : discussing at the moment is health care. : I note that you don't dispute my statement. Do I therefore take it that you : agree with me? I would never agree with you... isn't there someplace else you'd rather be than R.B.P.? -- John Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell) |
A Usenet persona calling itself Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: : A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: : Query to Scott, who claims: : ============ : the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to : COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad : luck. : =========== : : Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it : is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those : areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction? : : Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that : it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the : logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument. Scotty; First, I'm guessing "wron" is "wrong"... right? The concept behind all insurance is some people are paying for someone elses claim... otherwise, we'd all be paying cash every time we visit the doc for anything... surgery too... same with car insurance, homeowners insurance... life insurance... The feature of private insurance that makes it morally and ethically acceptable is that it's VOLUNTARY. You get to choose your provider, and thus your risk group, and you create a voluntary contract with the members of your risk group to do precisely as you suggest. Or, you can choose not to join any risk group. Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. Typically, a person insures HIMSELF against risks posed by others or outside forces. He gets to assess his risks and also the possibility that he will do something wrong and end up at financial risk because he injured someone else, and he insures himself and his assets accordingly. If he has nothing by way of assets that would be put at risk, then he doesn't insure himself. If he miscalculates, then he pays for his lack of foresight. Mandatory "liability" insurance is the state requiring ME to pay for insuring EVERYONE ELSE. That's just wrong. It turns the entire insurance model completely on its head, and it's immoral and unethical, not to mention stupid. So is socialized medicine, as Canada and Great Britain prove. You, your company (or your trust fund) pay $'s hoping that you will pay in less than you use in services... We the taxpayers also help fund this because Uncle Sam makes it a tax deduction for companies that are paying for all or part of a employee's health insurance costs... But it shouldn't. Government should have nothing whatever to do with private health care systems or insurance, beyond regulating it to ensure it's not fraudulent. It's the same with taxes... when it comes to road taxes, smaller trucks subsidize larger trucks, smaller cars subsidize larger cars like your hummer (if you still have it) when it comes to paying for our nations roads. There is a significant difference between requiring me to pay for healing injuries or illnesses caused by your risky lifestyle and requiring me to pay along with everyone else for my use of public facilities. I can control my costs in re taxes (to some extent) and fees by reducing (or eliminating) my use of the facilities. I can ride a bike and not pay much of anything in highway taxes. I can avoid the public library and swimming pools and not have to pay those fees. I can live in the country, on a well, and not have to pay for the public water system. But I cannot control your lifestyle to reduce the economic risks I face when I'm compelled to pay for your health care. If I could, I'd ban kayaking, smoking and fatty foods right away. This is the grave danger of mandatory public health insurance, by the way. By asking me to pay for your health care, you implicitly accept some degree of restraint on your freedom to damage your health by those who pay for it. That's why private health care companies can exclude certain people, such as those with pre-existing conditions and smokers, among others, or can choose to charge them higher premiums for their higher risk exposure. Limiting the risk pool is one of the ways private insurers keep costs down. If you live a healthy lifestyle, why shouldn't you be allowed to choose a risk group of like-minded people in order to reduce your potential economic exposure for other people's bad health? When the government runs the program, it has not just an economic incentive but a political incentive to control risks and thus costs, and it will inevitably regulate what the bureaucrats consider "risky lifestyles" in order to pander to the clamoring of the public, who, like me, don't want to have to pay to fix your injuries related to kayaking...or climbing...or smoking...or any of a myriad of risky behaviors that free people choose to engage in. That camel's nose is already firmly under the tent, as demonstrated by the mandatory seat belt and airbag laws in both Canada and the US. The primary rationale (and necessary economic justification under the Commerce Clause, BTW) for imposing those restrictions on an individual's freedom is that "avoidable injuries" to car occupants cost society some purportedly egregious amount of money, which is said to justify government mandates that you use seat belts as a way to cut public costs, and to hell with individual liberty and freedom of choice. Do you really want the government auditing your lifestyle and giving you an order to "cease and desist" engaging in any activity it deems too "dangerous" and thus costly to the public health care system? Not me. Or, like me, why should you not choose to eschew the insurance racket entirely and "self-insure?" By putting away in the bank the nearly $400 a month I was paying in health insurance, I've managed to stash away a considerable sum of money for my health needs. I'm stimulated to stay as healthy as possible, given my age and medical condition, because I pay for every single doctor's visit and medication I use out of my own pocket. That means that I don't go running to the ER every time I have the sniffles, which costs everybody in an insurance pool money. If I can't afford expensive treatments for cancer or heart disease, well, I guess I will die. That's life. I would never demand that someone else, including the public, pay to keep me alive for a few more months or years. That's morally reprehensible, whether an individual does it or the government does it in the individual's stead. Everybody dies sometime, some sooner rather than later. It's unfortunate, but it's not something society has any obligation to prevent. Your health is your responsibility and nobody else's. If you fail to plan ahead to pay for your health needs, then YOU get to suffer, you don't get to shove the costs off on everyone else. That's neither fair, moral nor ethical. Nor is your statement that smaller cars are "subsidizing" my Hummer true. Smaller cars pay less in highway-related taxes than my Hummer, which pays less in taxes than a semi. I pay more for tires and fuel than the small car, and thus I pay more in taxes. So, I'm paying my "fair share" of highway fees, just as everyone else is. In fact, larger vehicles are more likely to be "subsidizing" smaller vehicles than vice versa, because of the less efficient use of highway space that single-occupant small cars cause. A bus is many times more efficient than the 60 or more "small cars" it takes to move the same number of people, even if all 60 are LEVs. Using that rationale, the bigger, the better, and small cars ought to be banned entirely, as they waste resources and clog up the highways. And then there's the massive subsidies for LEV (Low Emission Vehicles) from the government. I pay for those who, for example, own a Prius. I don't begrudge them that subsidy, though by rights I should, and as soon as they can engineer a 4 wheel drive pickup truck that will carry 4000+ pounds of payload and can tow at a maximum gross vehicle weight of 23,000 pounds at interstate highway speeds without bogging down on hills that uses the same sort of system the Prius does, I'll buy one. Hell, I'll pay to convert my Hummer if the technology becomes available. But it's not, so I'm stuck with owning what's available, and paying the higher costs because it's cheaper than buying two vehicles, one of which I couldn't use at times of the year even if I could afford it because I live at the end of a long, muddy driveway that's occasionally snowed-in. If you want to pay to pave my driveway and buy me a snowplow blade for the Hummer, I'll buy a Prius. You ought to be willing to do so, given your support for socialized medicine. The rationale is the same: Force someone else to pay more in order to gain some purported social benefit for everyone. In this case, you get to pay a lot more so that I can buy a LEV, thus saving gas and helping to prevent global warming. Sounds like a fair deal to me. Of course, I won't drive it all the time, because I may have to haul cargo and because I like driving a large truck...it makes me feel safer, but that shouldn't bother you, given your expectation that I should pay for your health risks during kayaking. When can I expect your check? It's the American way to expect someone else to foot at least part of your bill... Only in left-wing socialist Democrat America. The other (slightly more than half) of the country believes in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. : It may well be wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad : genetics or bad luck in other areas...or not. However, what we are : discussing at the moment is health care. : I note that you don't dispute my statement. Do I therefore take it that you : agree with me? I would never agree with you... Sounds like a typical left-wing liberal Democrat version of rational debate... isn't there someplace else you'd rather be than R.B.P.? Sure. Down putting up concertina wire across the creek. But right now I'm having fun annoying you. -- 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 |
At this stage, I neither agree nor disagree: I ask for clarification.
Does your position apply only to healthcare? Is it otherwise acceptable to compel someone in areas other than healthcare? If so, why (or why not)? I'm looking for logical consistency in your position. |
Scotts figures:
============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Such insurance MUST be compulsory. If you don't like it, don't drive -- it's a fee you pay to be able to get on the road. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. Your paranoia about being harmed by another driver is insufficient reason to impose an economic burden on me. The point is that if YOU are concerned about being "out of action" due to an automobile accident, then YOU should buy insurance against that risk, not compel ME to cover you in the incredibly unlikely event that we two should have a traffic accident together. Such insurance MUST be compulsory. Why? You're perfectly free to obtain insurance against such risks if you believe you need it. If I don't believe my chances of being harmed in an automobile accident are significant, then I donąt have to buy insurance. If I come to find that I was wrong, then thatąs my lookout, and I stand to lose everything either from tending to my own damages or as the result of a lawsuit brought by someone I harmed. That's my choice to make as a free citizen of this country. I wouldn't think of imposing the burden upon YOU of insuring ME against YOUR potential bad acts, much less the entire driving public. What is your justification for imposing such a burden on me, or anyone else? You are free to sue me if I do you harm should you decide not to buy accidental damage and injury insurance. That's the way it should be. Why "MUST" such insurance be compulsory? If you don't like it, don't drive I don't like it, and I do drive. I also argue and lobby for changes to the motor vehicle laws so that such ridiculous burdens are put where they belong--on the individual who is at risk. In Florida, you donąt have to have "liability" insurance at all, or so I hear. If you think you're at risk from other drivers, you buy insurance to cover YOUR potential loss, in an amount suited to YOUR assets and needs. It works just fine there, and should be universal. -- it's a fee you pay to be able to get on the road. Then why is it not a "fee?" Why do I have to contract with a private company and pay them for a full year's coverage, 24/7, that I don't need, as opposed to having this "fee" assessed by the government, which would then provide the insurance itself. This model is called "pay at the pump" and is based on an additional tax on motor fuel to fund a government-run compensation program for those injured by uninsured drivers. Even that system is fairer than the present one, because as it is, I have to pay for a full year's insurance even if I only drive some of my numerous vehicle as little as twice a year. At present, I pay an outrageous amount for liability insurance on my trash truck, which I use about 5 or 6 times a year to haul household garbage and trash from my farm to the waste transfer station three miles away. How is it fair that I have to pay for 365 days of coverage for YOUR benefit, not mine, for six uses and 18 miles a year? I ought to be able to pay for six days of coverage, or pay for whatever use I make of the truck on the public highways as a function of how much gasoline I use in it. And since we're on the issue of compulsory insurance, under what precept in law am I lawfully required to "show my papers" (insurance identification card) to any cop who asks, under penalty of criminal action if I refuse? What ever happened to the Fourth Amendment? That policy is a private contract between me and my insurance agent, and the police need both probable cause and a warrant to demand it of me, as the Fourth Amendment protects me from unreasonable searches and seizures of my "papers." This is an interesting fact you might want to cogitate upon. I have refused to show my insurance card to a cop for many years now because the law in Colorado does not actually require one to do so, and even to the extent it actually does, the law is unconstitutional under the SCOTUS precedent in Kolender v Lawson. I got a ticket for failing to show "immediate evidence of insurance" a while back, after a deer committed suicide by running into the side of my truck. The State Trooper had to fill out an accident report and demanded my "proof of insurance." I referred him to the statement on the back of the registration, which is an oath signed under penalty of perjury, that I had a policy that complied with the law. He wouldn't accept that as "immediate evidence of insurance," which is ALL the law requires me to provide in the field. I refused to give him any other information, exercising my right to remain silent, and he gave me a ticket. I demanded a jury trial, since driving without insurance is a misdemeanor criminal offense. When my lawyer went to the pre-trial hearing and explained my constitutional search-and-seizure objections to both the law and the manner in which it was being enforced, she said "What if I donąt have time to play constitutional games?" Excuse me? "Constitutional games?" Good thing I wasn't at the meeting, because I would have ripped her a new asshole for characterizing my defense of my fundamental Constitutional rights as a "game." When she found out I wouldn't roll over, and that I had an air-tight, Supreme Court-ratified argument that the law as written and as applied is unconstitutional, she dismissed the ticket. I donąt expect to ever show that particular "private paper" to any cop, ever, and I'm looking forward to getting more tickets for refusing to do so, in hopes of actually getting to trial, where I can have the statute overturned by the courts, thus freeing all Coloradoans from the tyranny of the police and a little, often outdated piece of meaningless paper. They made it a pain in my ass, so now I'm going to make it a pain in their ass. I'm betting I'm better at it than they are. So far I'm right. Sorry, but whether I carry insurance is none of your, or especially the government's business, and you can both go pound sand. If you don't like it, then don't drive. -- 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 |
Scott:
=========== You are free to sue me if I do you harm should you decide not to buy accidental damage and injury insurance. That's the way it should be. Why "MUST" such insurance be compulsory? =============== And if sue you, you may own nothing and then I'm SOL. That's why such insurance MUST be compulsory. Scott again: ================== Then why is it not a "fee?" Why do I have to contract with a private company and pay them for a full year's coverage, 24/7, that I don't need, as opposed to having this "fee" assessed by the government, which would then provide the insurance itself. =============== Well, in BC, you buy your insurance from a government insurance firm. Without it, you may not drive. Quite right too, IMHO. BTW, I too think it unfair that you pay 365 days insurance for only a few days use. Surely you can buy insurance for short-term use. As to Scott's assertion: "Sorry, but whether I carry insurance is none of your, or especially the government's business, and you can both go pound sand. If you don't like it, then don't drive." That may work in Colorado, but not in BC. And I'm thankful for that. |
|
Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: : A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: : Query to Scott, who claims: : ============ : the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to : COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad : luck. : =========== : : Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it : is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those : areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction? : : Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that : it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the : logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument. Scotty; First, I'm guessing "wron" is "wrong"... right? The concept behind all insurance is some people are paying for someone elses claim... otherwise, we'd all be paying cash every time we visit the doc for anything... surgery too... same with car insurance, homeowners insurance... life insurance... You, your company (or your trust fund) pay $'s hoping that you will pay in less than you use in services... We the taxpayers also help fund this because Uncle Sam makes it a tax deduction for companies that are paying for all or part of a employee's health insurance costs... It's the same with taxes... when it comes to road taxes, smaller trucks subsidize larger trucks, smaller cars subsidize larger cars like your hummer (if you still have it) when it comes to paying for our nations roads. If everybody had to pay their own way, this country wouldn't be worth defending because you would be defending someone else. If it is the Law of the Jungle, then it's the same law for EVERYTHING. |
I think that sums it up nicely! BEAUTIFUL!
|
Now, if a person WANTS to try to save someone, that's completely different. Yeah. And what I'm hearing from you is that you don't WANT to save anybody. You COULD, but you don't WANT to. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: =========== You are free to sue me if I do you harm should you decide not to buy accidental damage and injury insurance. That's the way it should be. Why "MUST" such insurance be compulsory? =============== And if sue you, you may own nothing and then I'm SOL. True. That's an excellent reason for YOU to buy insurance to cover YOU against that risk, isn't it? In fact, that's the whole point of insurance, to insure YOU against harm caused by someone, or something else, like a fire, flood or burglar. "Liability" insurance, on the other hand, insures OTHERS against you. Screw that. I don't want to insure you against me. If you want to be insured against the wrongful acts of others, then YOU pay the bill. That's why such insurance MUST be compulsory. No, that's why YOU want to force ME to pay to insure YOU, it's not a reason why I should do so. If I don't own anything, and am therefore "judgment proof," then you need to buy insurance to protect you against people like me who might do you harm, not just in automobiles, but in any way. That's the way insurance works, you see. You decide how much risk you face and you pay a company to indemnify you for monetary losses associated with that risk. You don't demand that everyone else on the planet obtain "liability" insurance to cover you against some harm that they are statistically unlikely to cause. The fallacy of mandatory liability insurance is that it presumes that each driver is an equal risk when it comes to causing an accident, and that this means that all drivers should indemnify every other driver against loss. This means that a good driver pays far more in premiums than he should because he's not being insured based on HIS risk profile, instead he's being charged based on the aggregate risk profile of the *worst of the worst* drivers, ie: those drivers who are most likely to cause the insurance company to have to pay money. It's asinine for someone to have to pay based on the behavior of others they have no control over. Scott again: ================== Then why is it not a "fee?" Why do I have to contract with a private company and pay them for a full year's coverage, 24/7, that I don't need, as opposed to having this "fee" assessed by the government, which would then provide the insurance itself. =============== Well, in BC, you buy your insurance from a government insurance firm. Without it, you may not drive. Quite right too, IMHO. So, do you have to buy insurance as a pedestrian so that if you drunkenly step out into traffic and cause a driver to swerve and crash? No? Didn't think so. So why aren't you arguing for universal "user pays" liability insurance to protect you against any possible harm that someone else might possibly do to you...like, for example, burning down your house, or slugging you in the nose or hitting you in the head with a baseball bat? Why are those risks ones you have to pay to cover against but automobile liability insurance is coerced against someone else? Your system is somewhat better than ours, in that it's merely a compensation fund paid for by the highway users, who presumably pay about the same amount as everyone else, but it's still coercive where it should be voluntary. If I wish to take the risk of being injured by some dipwad on the highway and don't want to buy insurance to cover that risk, I should be allowed to do so. BTW, I too think it unfair that you pay 365 days insurance for only a few days use. Surely you can buy insurance for short-term use. Nope. I should be able to take the risk of driving the truck to the dump if I want, and if something bad happens and you and I collide, then no matter whose fault it is, your insurance company pays you for your damages. Then they sue me. In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my liability insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and nail to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you, and you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance policy. However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to extract compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely to actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than trusting to MY insurance company's altruism. They call such insurance "uninsured motorist coverage," and it's designed precisely to compensate me if the person who harmed me is indigent or uninsured. In Colorado, in fact, it's a very good idea to have such coverage, because we just repealed the "no fault" law, in which each individual's insurer paid for their customer's loss no matter who was at fault, and then the two companies slugged it out in court. Now, even if I deliberately ram you with my car, you have to sue me anyway to get anything, and you can be sure that my insurance company will do everything in its power to prevent you from winning. And, if YOU don't have insurance against such risks, then YOUR liability insurance provider WILL NOT HELP YOU in court to win the case, as they would if it was their dime on the line. This means that you have to hire a private attorney in order to sue me, and you're up against the weight of a well-funded major insurance company's legal staff who are strongly motivated to keep from letting you win. But, if YOU had insurance against being rammed by me, then your company would have to pay you, and then your company would be the one suing me to try to recover their payout. So, the mandatory liability scam is not just a scam, it's quite dangerous to rely upon. Besides, I bet that under the BC system, you forfeit your right to sue anybody, because such forfeiture of rights is common in government-run insurance/compensation fund schemes...because the government doesn't want to be involved in litigation. As to Scott's assertion: "Sorry, but whether I carry insurance is none of your, or especially the government's business, and you can both go pound sand. If you don't like it, then don't drive." That may work in Colorado, but not in BC. And I'm thankful for that. Oh, I bet it happens in BC too. The point, however, is that your argument is specious and not logically supportable. It's quite socialistically predictable, but unsupportable nonetheless. -- 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 |
Whether I would try to save him depends on a number of factors, including whether I'm capable of doing so without losing my own life. Wow. That's interesting. On one hand, you have the NYFD firefighters who were killed after rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center to save lives on 9/11, and then you have Scott Wieser, who *might* help, depending on whether or not his own life might be at risk. You're my hero. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 6/23/05 5:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/22/05 9:06 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically states that Scott Weiser has the right to be an idiot, and yet, you persist. Takes one to know one... Actually, it doesn't. EVERYONE knows you are an idiot. |
A Usenet persona calling itself The Unreal Franklin wrote:
Whether I would try to save him depends on a number of factors, including whether I'm capable of doing so without losing my own life. Wow. That's interesting. On one hand, you have the NYFD firefighters who were killed after rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center to save lives on 9/11, and then you have Scott Wieser, who *might* help, depending on whether or not his own life might be at risk. You're my hero. Well, maybe I'm your hero. It depends. Did you do something egregiously stupid to get yourself into trouble? Are you saveable, or would it be a futile attempt to recover a body that puts rescuer's lives at unnecessary risk? Do I have the proper tools and equipment to give me a reasonable probability of success, or, like the unfortunate would-be rescuer at the Potholes, west of Grand Junction on the Little Dolores, who drowned after being pulled underwater because he tied a blanket to his wrist while trying to save someone who fell into the raging flood, is what I have at hand more likely to get me killed than save the victim? Dead rescuers can't save anyone. It's asinine to leap to the rescue of someone in trouble if you don't know what you're doing or don't have the proper equipment to at least give some probability of success to the attempt. You can be a dead hero if you like, but I'll calculate my risks first, thanks. Do you think that the NYC fire department would have ordered 343 firefighters into the buildings on 9/11 if they *knew* that they were "rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center?" No way. They're not that stupid, nor are they that callous, nor would any sane NYFD firefighter have obeyed such an asinine order. Firefighters have families too, and they deserve to go home at the end of the day. And while we (yes, we, I'm a volunteer firefighter) may choose to take risks, sometimes substantial risks, we do it *voluntarily*, and we don't do it stupidly because we don't want to die any more than anyone else does. If you become the kind of "hero" firefighter you refer to, it usually means you miscalculated the situation and got killed, usually along with the victim, while attempting a rescue. Firefighters aren't heroes because they take stupid risks and do stupid things, they are heroes because they train like the devil so that they know *exactly* what they are doing and can accurately assess the risks involved in fighting a fire or making a rescue so that they know when to back off and when they can push the envelope to save a life. They are heroes because they know exactly where the edges of the envelope are and how far they can go without getting killed, and because they decide to go into the burning building anyway, unlike most people, including you, I imagine, who run away from the fire and hope a firefighter will save them. They're not heroes because they throw their lives away uselessly on lost-cause situations. The NYFD went into the towers to fight the fires and save victims, fully expecting to succeed in putting the fires out, not to pointlessly sacrifice their lives for nothing in a building doomed to imminent collapse. While there was certainly some risk of collapse, because that's inherent in any structure fire, from the point of view of the fire department at the time, the risks inherent in entering the buildings were thought to be acceptable, based on their knowledge of the structures and their firefighting experience. Nobody, including the engineers and builders of the towers, knew at the time that the force of the jets collisions would strip away the insulating foam from the steel and thus subject the structure, particularly the truss flooring system, to aviation fuel-based fire far beyond the design parameters of the steel. Nor did they know that failure of the joist hanger bolts, caused by melting, sagging floor joists on the fire floors, would cause a progressive and catastrophic failure of the entire building's structure. Nobody even dreamed it was possible because the buildings were built specifically to prevent such heat-related structural failures. Unfortunately, this event exceeded all the "worst case" design parameters, but the NYFD had no way of knowing that at the time. The fire department entered the building to put out the fire fully believing that the basic structure of the towers would remain intact and that the risks of fighting the fires was acceptable and within department guidelines. They had no idea that a catastrophic collapse was impending. If they had, I absolutely guarantee you that they would not have allowed 343 firefighters to enter the building just so they could die, even if that meant that some victims inside could not be rescued. If you don't believe me, then why don't you ask them? Firefighters are not stupid, and they don't generally take unnecessary risks. Sometimes that means they can't rescue people and the victims die. That's very sad, but it's just a fact of life, not their fault, and doesn't make them cowards just because they don't meet your twisted definition of "hero." Your implication that somebody else ought to throw their life away just to try to pull your sorry ass out of some cleft stick you've stuck it into is unbelievably arrogant. The lesson here is: "Sometimes you die." Would you care to make an ass of yourself again, or have you had enough? -- 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 6/23/05 5:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/22/05 9:06 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically states that Scott Weiser has the right to be an idiot, and yet, you persist. Takes one to know one... Actually, it doesn't. EVERYONE knows you are an idiot. Are you having an MPD moment? Since you're not "everyone," you must be, and even if "everyone" believed as you suggest, that would not change the truth of my statement. -- 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 The Unreal Franklin wrote:
Now, if a person WANTS to try to save someone, that's completely different. Yeah. And what I'm hearing from you is that you don't WANT to save anybody. You COULD, but you don't WANT to. Actually, I've spent most of my life saving people, as a Red Cross instructor, EMT, ER technician, police officer and firefighter, not to mention my volunteer activities in search and rescue with the Civil Air Patrol. How many lives have YOU saved? You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person based on a Usenet debate. Which means that you actually know ****-all about me. What I know about you, however, is that you're a tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms who makes snap judgments and post insulting comments because you're too stupid to wrap you're puny intellect around the concept of "debate." -- 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 6/23/05 7:39 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/23/05 5:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/22/05 9:06 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically states that Scott Weiser has the right to be an idiot, and yet, you persist. Takes one to know one... Actually, it doesn't. EVERYONE knows you are an idiot. Are you having an MPD moment? Since you're not "everyone," you must be, and even if "everyone" believed as you suggest, that would not change the truth of my statement. OK, I stand to be corrected. Anyone out there care to make a case that Scott Weiser is not an idiot? crickets chirping |
Too much money is disease and disease treatment...no benefactors of
good health except Ford, GMC, etc.etc.etc. Bad business and good business.... |
You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person based on a Usenet debate. Which means that you actually know ****-all about me. What I know about you, however, is that you're a tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms who makes snap judgments and post insulting comments because you're too stupid to wrap you're puny intellect around the concept of "debate." Lessee... oh, here it is: You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person based on a Usenet debate. Pot...kettle...black. Oooh, the Civil Air Patrol. Sorrreee, Colonel. I take it all back. Your compassion is unrelenting. You are the savior of all humanity. |
Not to mention there is alot of money to be made from the side effects
of modern drug medicine...in fact they now create 'new' diseases based on them... Dementia, parkinsons....how much is drug caused....(combination of drugs as well....) Too much profit in disease.... USA ranked 33rd in the world... Time Americans and Canadians spent their money on good products....chandeliers, cars, gold, diamonds... (self-interest sort of ) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com