I disagree. The source of the problem is guvmint in the first place.
Emergency rooms don't turn away the non critical care for fear of being
sued, and when you have health care coverage with tiny deductibles, people
think nothing of squandering the health care resources, and the third is the
unnecessary test done to cover ones ass.

The number of uninsured is far overblown as well

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
JimC,

Bert's theory is a conservatives in Canada are as liberal as an American
Liberal. He was not talking about any US party or group. I did like the
Canadian's Conservative's strong fiscal responsibility, which is lacking
in
the US's Conservative Party. This is something we need to understand, we
cannot continue to spend more than we bring in.

I looked at the web site and most of the principles are ones that
conservatives from America would endorse. The only one I noticed that is
being hotly debated in the US today is universal health care. I for one
believe this will become a fact in the US. I am concerned about the
inefficiency of all Governmental programs, but the current system is not
working. Those without healthcare insurance are not being treated when an
illness can be treated inexpensively, they are going to emergency rooms
when
they have severe health problems. Today, all Americans are paying for
their
very expensive healthcare anyway. It would be cheaper for all American's
if preventative healthcare was available for all, either through a
mandatory
private insurance companies, subsidized for the poor, or a Medicare type
program. This is a 180 degree change for me, but I know our current
system
is not working.




"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .
Lord Smithers, I am definitely not a Liberal so please take me off
your
list
as I am a card carrying member of the Federal Conservative Party of
Canada.

Makes you a Liberal/Progressive in the USA.

Good Morning Bert:
How could my being a member of a Political Party in Canada make me a
member
of a Political Group in the USA. Are you that dense that you think a
Canadian Citizen can be a member of your voting group? You need to go
back
to school to learn how your own system works.

Jim C.

Harry,
I have noticed over the years you have been reduced to using repetitive,
juvenile high school humor instead of even trying to use "creative puns or
jokes". Is this the result of old age or did you realize you were not
successful in your "creative puns and jokes"?




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P Fritz wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
"Don White" wrote in message
news P. Fritz wrote:

Donny and harry think the "I know you are but what am I" response is
some sort of intellectual response. It is pretty funny to watch them
have their little circle jerk fest.

There you go with the circles & jerks again.
You do have to find another hobby.
Are you speaking from a position of experience?



And he proves my point LOL




Ooohhhh...Fritz and Robbins, circling and jerking each other, right here
in rec.boats.



--
If you voted for Bush, you are to blame.

Harry is just practicing his "I know you are but what am I" routine.

Individuals with this Cluster B Personality Disorder have an excessive sense
of how important they
are. They demand and expect to be admired and praised by others and are
limited in their capacity to
appreciate others' perspectives.
Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder
(cautionary statement)

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of
empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts,
as indicated by five (or
more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements
and talents, expects to
be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,
beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should
associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or
automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to
achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings
and needs of others

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or
her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes


"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
Harry,
I have noticed over the years you have been reduced to using repetitive,
juvenile high school humor instead of even trying to use "creative puns or
jokes". Is this the result of old age or did you realize you were not
successful in your "creative puns and jokes"?




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P Fritz wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
"Don White" wrote in message
news P. Fritz wrote:

Donny and harry think the "I know you are but what am I" response
is
some sort of intellectual response. It is pretty funny to watch
them
have their little circle jerk fest.

There you go with the circles & jerks again.
You do have to find another hobby.
Are you speaking from a position of experience?



And he proves my point LOL




Ooohhhh...Fritz and Robbins, circling and jerking each other, right here
in rec.boats.



--
If you voted for Bush, you are to blame.

Paul,

I agree that most cities have a hospital whose emergency rooms do not turn
away patients. The problem is this is the most expensive way of dispensing
healthcare. People are using emergency rooms when a less expensive doctors
visit would suffice.

Since you agree that you and I are already paying for those w/o insurance,
it is in yours and mine best interest to make sure we have the least
expensive program in place to provide universal healthcare.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
I disagree. The source of the problem is guvmint in the first place.
Emergency rooms don't turn away the non critical care for fear of being
sued, and when you have health care coverage with tiny deductibles,
people
think nothing of squandering the health care resources, and the third is
the
unnecessary test done to cover ones ass.

The number of uninsured is far overblown as well

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor.
wrote in message ...
JimC,

Bert's theory is a conservatives in Canada are as liberal as an American
Liberal. He was not talking about any US party or group. I did like the
Canadian's Conservative's strong fiscal responsibility, which is lacking
in
the US's Conservative Party. This is something we need to understand, we
cannot continue to spend more than we bring in.

I looked at the web site and most of the principles are ones that
conservatives from America would endorse. The only one I noticed that is
being hotly debated in the US today is universal health care. I for one
believe this will become a fact in the US. I am concerned about the
inefficiency of all Governmental programs, but the current system is not
working. Those without healthcare insurance are not being treated when
an
illness can be treated inexpensively, they are going to emergency rooms
when
they have severe health problems. Today, all Americans are paying for
their
very expensive healthcare anyway. It would be cheaper for all
American's
if preventative healthcare was available for all, either through a
mandatory
private insurance companies, subsidized for the poor, or a Medicare type
program. This is a 180 degree change for me, but I know our current
system
is not working.




"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .
Lord Smithers, I am definitely not a Liberal so please take me off
your
list
as I am a card carrying member of the Federal Conservative Party of
Canada.

Makes you a Liberal/Progressive in the USA.

Good Morning Bert:
How could my being a member of a Political Party in Canada make me a
member
of a Political Group in the USA. Are you that dense that you think a
Canadian Citizen can be a member of your voting group? You need to go
back
to school to learn how your own system works.

Jim C.

First of all, it would be universal health insurance, not healthcare,
since anyone requiring care gets it regardless of the ability to pay.

The problem with unviersal guvmint insurance is that it make everyone
suffer the same. Which is one of the goals of liebrals.

If I can afford better care because I work my ass off, then I should be
allowed to do that.

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message . ..
Paul,

I agree that most cities have a hospital whose emergency rooms do not
turn
away patients. The problem is this is the most expensive way of
dispensing
healthcare. People are using emergency rooms when a less expensive
doctors
visit would suffice.

Since you agree that you and I are already paying for those w/o insurance,
it is in yours and mine best interest to make sure we have the least
expensive program in place to provide universal healthcare.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
I disagree. The source of the problem is guvmint in the first place.
Emergency rooms don't turn away the non critical care for fear of being
sued, and when you have health care coverage with tiny deductibles,
people
think nothing of squandering the health care resources, and the third is
the
unnecessary test done to cover ones ass.

The number of uninsured is far overblown as well

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor.
wrote in message ...
JimC,

Bert's theory is a conservatives in Canada are as liberal as an
American
Liberal. He was not talking about any US party or group. I did like
the
Canadian's Conservative's strong fiscal responsibility, which is
lacking
in
the US's Conservative Party. This is something we need to understand,
we
cannot continue to spend more than we bring in.

I looked at the web site and most of the principles are ones that
conservatives from America would endorse. The only one I noticed that
is
being hotly debated in the US today is universal health care. I for
one
believe this will become a fact in the US. I am concerned about the
inefficiency of all Governmental programs, but the current system is
not
working. Those without healthcare insurance are not being treated when
an
illness can be treated inexpensively, they are going to emergency rooms
when
they have severe health problems. Today, all Americans are paying for
their
very expensive healthcare anyway. It would be cheaper for all
American's
if preventative healthcare was available for all, either through a
mandatory
private insurance companies, subsidized for the poor, or a Medicare
type
program. This is a 180 degree change for me, but I know our current
system
is not working.




"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .
Lord Smithers, I am definitely not a Liberal so please take me off
your
list
as I am a card carrying member of the Federal Conservative Party
of
Canada.

Makes you a Liberal/Progressive in the USA.

Good Morning Bert:
How could my being a member of a Political Party in Canada make me a
member
of a Political Group in the USA. Are you that dense that you think
a
Canadian Citizen can be a member of your voting group? You need to
go
back
to school to learn how your own system works.

Jim C.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Good Morning Bert:
You are as bad a Doug at taking everything too seriously.

What if I said, that you would be considered a Liberal/Progressive in
the
USA. Would that have been easier for you to understand?

I understand how the US system works. But, what I don't understand is
why
in
the parlimentarian system, of which your country operates at the federal
level, is why you subject yourselfs to these votes of no confidence in
the
prime minister which can result in dissolving the current government. It
seems that that can and would produce instability interanlly and be
viewed
as wishy washy externally.
Bert, you mean to tell me that you don't take politics seriously? If
that
is the case, why are you discussing it here?

I know that you don't understand how a Parliament works. A parliamentary
system works well because it is the will of the people which makes it
work.
If the leader of our government makes some wrong choices, then we will
have
no confidence in the government and can vote it out of power and bring in
a
government to do the will of the people. You are stuck with Bush and
can't get rid of him, easily, in your form of government. If the
government
of Canada is a strong one, it will have the confidence of the people and
it
will stay in power. In our system, the government follows the will of
the
people.
'
Jim C.



The down side is that policy (economic, forgeign etc) can change at the drop
of the hat. Here in the states, things remain stable (as in direction)
for 4 years.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

The down side is that policy (economic, forgeign etc) can change at the
drop
of the hat. Here in the states, things remain stable (as in direction)
for 4 years.

In Canada, under Parliamentary rule, if the government screws up, we change
the government. Under your system, if the government screws up, your stuck
with it!

If you are a clear thinker, which is best?

Jim C.

Harry,
I have to say your macro seems to demonstrate a lot of deep seating anger
and resentment. Especially since I have always been polite in all of my
posts. This might explain why you had the outburst at Best Buy.

By the way, were you able to find the product you wanted at another store?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Lord Reginald Smithers wrote:
Harry,

Here's a new macro for you, buttbrain:

I'm not interested in your directing towards me your opinions, your
suggestions, your commentary, your questions or, in fact, any of the crap
you eject into this newsgroup. I've told you this many times. Anyone else
with a working brain would have taken the hint by now.
You are not now nor anytime in the future going to be able to engage me
in any sort of discussion on any topic. All you are going to get from
me is a canned macro. Now, be a good little dicquehead and run off and
play with your retarded right-wing buddies here.


--
Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.

Paul,
See my response below.


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
First of all, it would be universal health insurance, not healthcare,
since anyone requiring care gets it regardless of the ability to pay.

Absolutely it is universal health insurance.

The problem with unviersal guvmint insurance is that it make everyone
suffer the same. Which is one of the goals of liebrals.

This would not neccessarily be true about one insurance policty fits
everyone, remember, my suggestion is to help keep yours and my costs as low
as possible. Today, you and I are paying for all those without insurance
already. I would rather pay for cheap preventative care, than expensive
treatment due to lack of preventative care.

Just as people can buy different health insurance today, different auto
insurance today, there is nothing to say we all have to have the same health
insurance.


If I can afford better care because I work my ass off, then I should be
allowed to do that.

And you would not be required to us a national health care program if it was
offered. In most countries with universal health insurance, there are
private health insurance providers for those who don't want to use the
limited govt. resources.

The idea is to find a way to lower yours and my health insurance costs.



"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor.
wrote in message . ..
Paul,

I agree that most cities have a hospital whose emergency rooms do not
turn
away patients. The problem is this is the most expensive way of
dispensing
healthcare. People are using emergency rooms when a less expensive
doctors
visit would suffice.

Since you agree that you and I are already paying for those w/o
insurance,
it is in yours and mine best interest to make sure we have the least
expensive program in place to provide universal healthcare.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
I disagree. The source of the problem is guvmint in the first place.
Emergency rooms don't turn away the non critical care for fear of being
sued, and when you have health care coverage with tiny deductibles,
people
think nothing of squandering the health care resources, and the third
is
the
unnecessary test done to cover ones ass.

The number of uninsured is far overblown as well

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor.
wrote in message ...
JimC,

Bert's theory is a conservatives in Canada are as liberal as an
American
Liberal. He was not talking about any US party or group. I did like
the
Canadian's Conservative's strong fiscal responsibility, which is
lacking
in
the US's Conservative Party. This is something we need to understand,
we
cannot continue to spend more than we bring in.

I looked at the web site and most of the principles are ones that
conservatives from America would endorse. The only one I noticed that
is
being hotly debated in the US today is universal health care. I for
one
believe this will become a fact in the US. I am concerned about the
inefficiency of all Governmental programs, but the current system is
not
working. Those without healthcare insurance are not being treated
when
an
illness can be treated inexpensively, they are going to emergency
rooms
when
they have severe health problems. Today, all Americans are paying for
their
very expensive healthcare anyway. It would be cheaper for all
American's
if preventative healthcare was available for all, either through a
mandatory
private insurance companies, subsidized for the poor, or a Medicare
type
program. This is a 180 degree change for me, but I know our current
system
is not working.




"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .
Lord Smithers, I am definitely not a Liberal so please take me
off
your
list
as I am a card carrying member of the Federal Conservative Party
of
Canada.

Makes you a Liberal/Progressive in the USA.

Good Morning Bert:
How could my being a member of a Political Party in Canada make me a
member
of a Political Group in the USA. Are you that dense that you
think
a
Canadian Citizen can be a member of your voting group? You need to
go
back
to school to learn how your own system works.

Jim C.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

The down side is that policy (economic, forgeign etc) can change at the
drop
of the hat. Here in the states, things remain stable (as in
direction)
for 4 years.

In Canada, under Parliamentary rule, if the government screws up, we
change
the government. Under your system, if the government screws up, your
stuck
with it!

If you are a clear thinker, which is best?

I still feel the US system is better, we are not "stuck", there is a
removal process, the bar is just set higher than a change in the wind

Jim C.