60 Minutes

[Guest fukamarine]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>Other than a few fringe individuals who are dissatisfied with

>their own lives and blame their country for that, Americans

>aren't exactly eager for our country to be more like Canada.

 

Well if you oh-so-vastly-superior Americans give Messrs Bush and Asscroft 4 more years, I'd hate to tell you what country, your country, will be more like!

 

 

 

fukamarine

[Luv2play]

I should have made it clear in my remarks that I was talking about the comparability between Canada and the US for government employess, which is what we were talking about in the specific example of a military officer forfeiting his pension. I am aware that private employers may have different pension schemes both in Canada and the US.

 

I am also aware of the differences between vesting and locked-in. Once a pension plan's contributions are vested in favour of a particular employeee, it means he can count on obtaining a pension eventually, no matter what happens to his employment, and that his employer's contributions are guaranteed to be included in that eventual pension. Locked-in means that if the employee leaves that job and goes elsewhere, he will have to wait until he is of pensionable age to draw down the pension. Thus, if he elects to withdraw the money from the employer's plan, he must invest it in a locked-in RRSP which he cannot access (unlike other RRSPs) until he reaches pensionable age.

[woodlawn]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>>I hasten to agree. You will find many Canadians and

>Britons

>>who complain about the inefficienies of their national

>health

>>systems. You will NOT find many who would support scrapping

>a

>>single payer system for the every-man-for-himself system we

>>have in America.

 

>Maybe you are eager to sacrifice the quality of your health

>care for some socialist panacea where we all have everything

>equal,

 

You mean like Medicare? I assume that given your disdain for such "utopian, socialist" programs, when you become eligible for it (assuming you are not already eligible) you will refuse all benefits as a matter of principle. You're not such a hypocrite as to rail against a program like that and then participate in it yourself. Right?

 

 

>but thankfully, most Americans aren't.

 

Actually, polls last year showed "most Americans" think it's more important for government to make sure everyone has health insurance than to provide tax cuts.

 

> All anyone has

>to do is listen to Europeans talk about the quality of their

>health care and the debate is settled.

 

 

In the course of your listening, how many Europeans have you heard demand their governments scrap the single payer system for the American system? If there's any constituency for that position in England or France, for example, how come you can't find any political leader there who advocates it?

 

 

>And if things are so so so so bad and unfair for poor people

>in this country, tell me - why the fuck do poor people from

>all over the world sacrifice life and limb to come here???

 

I think you'll find the countries that actually provide a real safety net for the poor don't send a huge amount of immigrants here. Do we have a vast number of poor people from England and France and Germany and Japan trying to sneak into America? I hadn't noticed.

 

> Why aren't they going to Canada in droves?

 

They are. Canada has a huge immigrant population. You didn't know that?

 

>Someone should stand on the California-Mexico border and tell

>all of those people who sacrifice everything to come here that

>everything here is really awful

 

I nominate you. All in favor?

 

 

>The poor immigrants who choose this country to come to far

>more than any other country on the planet don't seem to have

>the lesson that anti-Americans love to preach: that America

>is so evil to the poor.

 

How exactly would they find that out? Do you think they can get the latest unemployment numbers from the Labor Department every month over the Internet?

[woodlawn]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>luv has it wrong again.

>The poor get FREE care at Emergency Rooms around the country.

 

You are the one who has it wrong. Federal law requires hospital emergency rooms to treat anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay ONLY until that person's condition is "stable." Do you understand the difference between that and "FREE care"?

 

 

>They are over flowing with people who do not care for

>themselves

 

They are overflowing with people who can't go to a "regular physician" for non-emergency matters because they don't have insurance or money to pay such a physician. Ironically, it would be far less expensive for hospitals to provide non-emergency care for such people free of charge than to treat them in an emergency room. Another example of the topsy-turvy way our health system operates.

 

Which do you think would be less expensive -- to provide free checkups and medication for people with high blood pressure, or to provide emergency care and hospitalization for such people when they have a heart attack or stroke because they couldn't afford to deal with the problem before it became an emergency? Think about it.

 

While you're at it, think about the low-wage workers who handle your food and your plates and your glasses and your cutlery when you eat at a restaurant. They are touching things that go in your mouth. Are you quite sure you don't want them to have a health insurance program which provides regular checkups to catch health problems like hepatitis early?

[Guest fukamarine]

>I am also aware of the differences between vesting and

>locked-in. Once a pension plan's contributions are vested in

>favour of a particular employeee, it means he can count on

>obtaining a pension eventually, no matter what happens to his

>employment, and that his employer's contributions are

>guaranteed to be included in that eventual pension.

 

Yes - but: If he does not come under to 10/45 rule, the pension contributions he receives (both his own and his employers) do not have to be transferred to another form of pension plan. He is free to take all the money and buy a new car with it - or whatever (how about a trip to Rio?)after his income tax has been paid on it. There is no way it has to be locked in. It is only locked-in after both criteria are met, (a) he has been in the plan for more than 10 years and (b) he is over 45 years of age. And it is the government that stipulates that - not the employer or the pension plan carrier.

 

>Locked-in

>means that if the employee leaves that job and goes elsewhere,

>he will have to wait until he is of pensionable age to draw

>down the pension. Thus, if he elects to withdraw the money

>from the employer's plan, he must invest it in a locked-in

>RRSP which he cannot access (unlike other RRSPs) until he

>reaches pensionable age.

 

Correct - but once again, only if he is over 45 and over 10 years in the plan.

 

fukamarine

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>Actually, polls last year showed "most Americans" think it's

>more important for government to make sure everyone has health

>insurance than to provide tax cuts.

 

Right. And then what did the government do? It provided tax cuts. x(

[Doug69]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>>Actually, polls last year showed "most Americans" think

>it's

>>more important for government to make sure everyone has

>health

>>insurance than to provide tax cuts.

>

>Right. And then what did the government do? It provided tax

>cuts. x(

 

Actually, tax cuts were implemented almost immediately - they were a campaign promise Bush made and fulfilled.

 

And once those taxes were cut, the Republicans slaughtered the Democrats in the mid-term 2002 elections, solidying their hold over every branch of Government.

 

How can you sit there and delude yourself into thinking that people hate tax cuts and love socialized health care when the party which advocates tax cuts and opposes socialized health care wins over the party opposing tax cuts and which advocates socialized health care?

 

Hillary tried to implement socialized medicine in this country. What happened? There was one of the most extreme backlashes ever and the GOP took over the Congress in the Gingrich Revolution, control which has lasted (and increased and is still increasing) through today.

 

You can argue that socialized medicine is a good idea if you want. But you can't honestly argue that a majority shares your view. On that issue, the proof is in the electoral pudding.

[woodlawn]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>>>Actually, polls last year showed "most Americans" think

>>it's

>>>more important for government to make sure everyone has

>>health

>>>insurance than to provide tax cuts.

>>

>>Right. And then what did the government do? It provided

>tax

>>cuts. x(

 

>Actually, tax cuts were implemented almost immediately - they

>were a campaign promise Bush made and fulfilled.

 

A promise to whom? And since Gore got many more votes than Bush -- not even Bush disputes that -- why would Bush assume his agenda is what most voters wanted?

 

>And once those taxes were cut, the Republicans slaughtered the

>Democrats in the mid-term 2002 elections, solidying their hold

>over every branch of Government.

 

Slaughtered? Bush spent a vast amount of time and money traveling all over the country to support Republican candidates in 2002. But if 20,000 votes in various states had gone the other way, Democrats would have retained control of the Senate nevertheless. That is what his millions of dollars and hundreds of hours accomplished -- he moved 20,000 votes. That is his "mandate" for tax cuts.

 

 

>How can you sit there and delude yourself

 

This sounds suspiciously like a personal attack. Must I call in the moderators to bring you to heel?

 

 

into thinking that

>people hate tax cuts and love socialized health care when the

>party which advocates tax cuts and opposes socialized health

>care wins over the party opposing tax cuts and which advocates

>socialized health care?

 

Since their victory was by such a tiny margin, I am amazed to see you pretending that they have some sort of huge popular mandate for what they are doing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

>Hillary tried to implement socialized medicine in this

>country. What happened?

 

The health insurance industry spent tens of millions of dollars on negative advertising to defeat the initiative, and the people who needed the initiative spent nothing, since they had nothing to spend. Isn't that what usually happens?

 

 

>You can argue that socialized medicine is a good idea if you

>want.

 

You can argue with the millions of seniors in this country who would kill any politician who threatened to take away Medicare. Just make sure to do it when I'm not around. I don't like violence.

 

>But you can't honestly argue that a majority shares

>your view. On that issue, the proof is in the electoral

>pudding.

 

Yes, a majority shares my view. Just as a majority of Americans support gun control and a majority of Americans (including a majority of Republican voters) support a woman's right to choose. Unfortunately, these issues are sometimes decided by vocal, super-committed minority groups.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>>>Actually, polls last year showed "most Americans" think

>>it's

>>>more important for government to make sure everyone has

>>health

>>>insurance than to provide tax cuts.

>>

>>Right. And then what did the government do? It provided

>tax

>>cuts. x(

>

>Actually, tax cuts were implemented almost immediately - they

>were a campaign promise Bush made and fulfilled.

 

Yeah, going on his solid mandate and landslide victory in the election.

Bush *lost* the popular vote, if you recall.

 

>How can you sit there and delude yourself into thinking that

>people hate tax cuts and love socialized health care when the

>party which advocates tax cuts and opposes socialized health

>care wins over the party opposing tax cuts and which advocates

>socialized health care?

 

Please do *NOT* put words into my mouth or assume that you know what I think or advocate when I have not said anything about it. You are one of a few posters here who are constantly making up what other people think, say, or believe, or wildly exaggerating it; then berating them for it and continuing to assert it as if it were reality rather than your invention.

 

I have not said *ANYTHING* in this thread or anywhere else on this board about "socialized" health care or whether people hate tax cuts, let alone what I personally think about them.

 

All I did was to comment that in the face of evidence that the majority of the American people think that universal health insurance is more important than tax cuts, the government opted for tax cuts. That is simply a statement of fact, not opinion.

 

Note the words *more important*. That doesn't say that anyone either hates or likes either of the alternatives. Just that one is *more important* than the other. And that attitude did *not* arise only after the tax cuts were enacted. It has been around for a long time and the effect that the tax cuts would have on the availability of funding for health insurance was part of the debate over the tax cuts.

 

Also you have consistently been misusing the term "socialized health care," "socialized medicine,' etc., and characterizing Medicare and government health insurance programs as "socialized medicine," presumably as an attempted smear. (Another example of propagating a misrepresentation.)

[OneFinger]

Thanks for the info. I remember reading the newspaper articles about this incident. Didn't know it had been made into a move.

 

Really appreciated the link with ordering data.

[giovoni]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

This isn't just for this post that I'm responding too but I wonder where all the shrieking blind patriotism that usually comes from the right is in regard to America's poor. Can't they do no wrong like everyone else in the country? I highly doubt that Canadians go meekly into the night without taking advantage of any laws there. I can't imagine that the kind of abuse (that you completely fabricate above btw) doesn't go on in Canada and other countries. In Denver, at least, the ER's are filled with emergencies.. depending on what hospital you go to. If you're at Denver Health (the current place where non insured go when they need to) you find gunshot wounds and knife wounds from everyone, insured and uninsured alike. The poor and destitute you see are for the most part Mexican immigrants who need dialysis and because of the laws that Woodlawn explains below can only come in for it when they are at death's door. These immigrants only have jobs here BTW because their employers who hire them illegally don't have to pay for private insurance for them.

 

People don't come in with constipation ... if they do they are sent quickly away. Some of them are too poor to buy laxatives and prune juice anyway if you really want us to take your asinine example seriously. It escapes some here that can fly boys in from all corners of the US to lick their asses that some people can't afford to eat -- let alone go to the drug store and get OTC drugs that don't approach cheap. One bottle of maylox = around 5 - 10 ramen noodle dinners .. or about a weeks worth of some people's food. In any case if someone did develop constipation they would be turned away.. The ~ $10.00 laxative would be kept in the ER and the person would have to return when his constipation turned into fecal impaction, ileus, necrosis, perforation and THEN life threatening peritonitis requiring a 10,000 dollar operation which would be needed to stabilize such a patient.

 

Does this mean we need a universal health care system? Not really although there are arguments which could probably support such a system. This is a single payer system anyway.. the people who hire illegal immigrants and don't pay for health benefits, or who hire cheap legal work without benefits are just passing the cost on to the rest of us. I just find it a bit offensive to accuse the poor people in this country who generally (wish plenty of exceptions I know) work very hard for what little they have, of being lazy and quick to take advantage of what little they can get in the health care system. The exact same thing could be said of the nations rich.. they work very hard (with some glaring exceptions - plenty of rich people do no work at all) and take advantage of every opportunity that they can to keep as much of their wealth as possible. Are they more lazy and undeserving then the nations poor?

 

I do know that much more glaring hijacking of the welfare system, health care system and hospital system do take place in other parts of the country. It doesn't mean that poor people inherently cannot take care of themselves however, or that they are making no effort to do so.

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[Guest]

I know I'm chiming in late (I took a nice ski vacation this MLK week-end!), but here's my take on these discussions.

(1) The officer showed incredibly bad judgment not only in having sex with the enlisted man but even more so in taping the event. Couldn't he have waited the few weeks until he had passed the retirement age? The idiot's lucky he's not in the slammer.

(2) The very poor in this country do get free medical care in the U.S. It's called Medicaid. This covers preventative care, medications, routine doctor vists, ER visits, and hospitalizations. Even illegal aliens can benefit from this!! There are also other programs available for the less than very poor (i.e. just plain poor).

(3) As a doctor who works with the poor every day, I can tell you that there are many reasons for being poor. These include laziness, stupidity, mental illness, sociopathy, poor health, and bad luck. Who wants to hire any of these people? There aren't too many companies eager to hire potato-chip-munching 300#'ers, dumb-asses, schizos or obnoxious people, people whose joints are aching all the time, or someone who has to take care of a chronically ill parent/spouse/child for the better part of the day. There is no simple solution to the problem of poverty.

(4) One can have universal health care coverage without having a single payer system (although a single payer system is a reasonable option). We have this for auto insurance. It's called assigned risk. In our current system, if you ever get diagnosed with a chronic medical condition (certainly diabetes, and often even hypertension), you are fucked because no health insurance company will touch you until you're 65 and get Medicare. You might be able to get health coverage through an employer, but if you're not well enough to work full-time, you are totally screwed!!

[Doug69]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>Yeah, going on his solid mandate and landslide victory in the

>election.

>Bush *lost* the popular vote, if you recall.

 

You can argue about the 2000 elections all you want, but not about the 2002 elections. That was my point, which you understandably ignored. Bush and the Congress implemented huge tax cuts but did not implement socialized health care. After they did so, and after the Democrats railed against tax cuts, the GOP had a historic victory in the 2002 elections, thereby squarely negating your point that people prefer health care to tax cuts.

 

Get it now?

 

>Please do *NOT* put words into my mouth or assume that you

>know what I think or advocate when I have not said anything

>about it.

 

There's only one point I have attributed to you - that people prefer health care to tax cuts. There's no denying that you made that point. Just look above a few posts where Woodlawn said: "Actually, polls last year showed "most Americans" think it's more important for government to make sure everyone has health insurance than to provide tax cuts," and you answered: "Right."

 

I don't blame you for wanting to deny that you made this point - I'd want to deny it, too - but the fact that it's printed forever makes it sort of difficult for you to do so.

 

You are one of a few posters here who are

>constantly making up what other people think, say, or believe,

>or wildly exaggerating it; then berating them for it and

>continuing to assert it as if it were reality rather than your

>invention.

 

Oh, my - this is plainly a violation of the new civility guidelines - attack the issue, not the person. Did you miss the new decree? But I know from that nasty obssesssion you developed towards VaHawk that once you start using all sorts of asterisks to make your points, it means you are frothing at the mouth, so I know you couldn't help but violate these guidelines, and for that reason, and in the spirit of generosity, I'll overlook it - this one time.

 

>I have not said *ANYTHING* in this thread or anywhere else on

>this board about "socialized" health care or whether people

>hate tax cuts, let alone what I personally think about them.

 

LOL! You said that people prefer health care to tax cuts. You then also observed that the government gave us tax cuts instead of health care, and then placed a sad face after that observation. Why bother denying that you said what you said?

 

>All I did was to comment that in the face of evidence that the

>majority of the American people think that universal health

>insurance is more important than tax cuts, the government

>opted for tax cuts. That is simply a statement of fact, not

>opinion.

 

No - that is NOT a fact. It is the opposite of a fact. The 2002 mid-term elections prove that.

 

Also proving this is that candidates who have opposed tax cuts are disasters at the polls (see e.g., Walter Mondale), as are political officials who try to implement socialized medicine (see e.g., Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy). By contrast, politicians who run on a platform of tax cuts and no socialized medicine tend to be quite popular (see e.g., Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush).

 

So you can say all you want that people want health care over tax cuts - and then once you are done saying it, you can deny all you want that you've said it - but these facts which disprove your point will never go away.

[Guest Merlin]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

About half of the people in the US pay no income taxes and another significant percentage pay little income taxes. So, sure, if you ask them, most people will say that health care is more important than tax cuts. But obviously those who pay big income tax bills are likely to have the opposite opinion. The Democrat party lives by those who want freebies and welfare at someone else's expense. The Republicans are supported by those who believe in free enterprise and who believe that socialism does not work.

[woodlawn]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>Please do *NOT* put words into my mouth or assume that you

>know what I think or advocate when I have not said anything

>about it. You are one of a few posters here who are

>constantly making up what other people think, say, or believe,

>or wildly exaggerating it; then berating them for it and

>continuing to assert it as if it were reality rather than your

>invention.

 

You are absolutely correct. This has long been a pattern of Doug's. For another example, check out one of his earlier responses to me in this thread in which he implies I said that Dubya is responsible for the increasing difficulty of affording a middle class lifestyle, when the truth, of course, is that I said no such thing.

 

>All I did was to comment that in the face of evidence that the

>majority of the American people think that universal health

>insurance is more important than tax cuts, the government

>opted for tax cuts. That is simply a statement of fact, not

>opinion.

 

Again, absolutely correct.

[woodlawn]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>About half of the people in the US pay no income taxes and

>another significant percentage pay little income taxes.

 

But they do pay Social Security payroll taxes, and since the Administration keeps "borrowing" money paid as Social Security taxes to fund government operations, what's the difference?

 

The difference is that when Bush proposes a "tax cut" that cuts ONLY income taxes and not payroll taxes, it in no way benefits millions of people who are paying taxes every week that are used to pay for government operations. It only benefits upper income taxpayers.

 

 

>The Democrat party lives by those who want freebies and

>welfare at someone else's expense.

 

This is a great example of the lies Republicans tell. In fact it is the people whose major tax contributions are through payroll taxes who are getting screwed. They get no benefit from income tax cuts, and the taxes they pay that are SUPPOSED to be going into the Social Security Trust Fund are actually being used for government operations, thus decreasing the chance that they will ever get the SS benefits they actually pay for.

 

>The Republicans are

>supported by those who believe in free enterprise and who

>believe that socialism does not work.

 

The Republicans are supported by people like Ken Lay -- who was a national co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle campaign -- because they believe that with Republican help they can lie, cheat and steal their way to riches. And they have much to go on in that belief.

[Doug69]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>The Republicans are supported by people like Ken Lay -- who

>was a national co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle campaign --

>because they believe that with Republican help they can lie,

>cheat and steal their way to riches. And they have much to go

>on in that belief.

 

Whose Justice Department prosecuted Arthur Anderson, and whose Justice Department just sent Enron's CEO to prison for an extraordinary 10 years in order to ensure that testimony can be obtained in order to send Enron's Chairman and President to prison? That's the Bush Administration - the same one you're accusing of being supported by criminals in order that they can steal without consequence. Do you have any intellectual honesty at all?

 

And citing Kenneth Lay as an argument against Republican economic policies is like citing welfare receipients who create fake ID's in order to obtain multiple welfare checks each month (and who almost invariably support Democrats) as an argument against social programs and as an argument in favor of the claim that welfare receipients support the Democratic Party in order to steal money from hard-working taxpayers. The fact that particular criminals abuse a policy is hardly an indict of the policy itself.

[Doug69]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>You are absolutely correct. This has long been a pattern of

>Doug's.

 

Do you realize how frequently you take time out of your life to write posts about me? Doesn't think tell you something about the important role I play in that life of yours, as well as the barren nature that life?

 

And I'm pretty sure that there is nothing more pathetic than writing a post to someone to tell them how right they are about the critical things they said about another poster with whom you are having a disagreement. Are you really that desperate to feel fortified and liked that you can't refrain from these sorts of junior-high-level clique games? "Yeah, you're right - he is bad!" Do you hear yourself?

 

>>All I did was to comment that in the face of evidence that

>the

>>majority of the American people think that universal health

>>insurance is more important than tax cuts, the government

>>opted for tax cuts. That is simply a statement of fact, not

>>opinion.

>

>Again, absolutely correct.

 

Again, absolutely pathetic.

[woodlawn]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>>The Republicans are supported by people like Ken Lay -- who

>>was a national co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle campaign --

>>because they believe that with Republican help they can lie,

>>cheat and steal their way to riches. And they have much to

>go

>>on in that belief.

 

>Whose Justice Department prosecuted Arthur Anderson, and whose

>Justice Department just sent Enron's CEO to prison for an

>extraordinary 10 years

 

Nobody's. Enron's onetime CEO Jeff Skilling has not been charged with anything. And their last CEO, Ken Lay, also has been charged with nothing in the two years since the scandal broke. Why do you keep making things up?

 

>That's the Bush Administration - the same one you're

>accusing of being supported by criminals in order that they

>can steal without consequence. Do you have any intellectual

>honesty at all?

 

If you keep making personal remarks like the above I will have to ask the moderators to delete your posts. If you can't play by the same rules as everyone else, leave.

 

I seem to recall you going on and on and on about the thievery of Rosti. But for some reason you never mentioned that Rosti was sent to prison by Clinton's Justice Department. Don't ever use the term "intellectual honesty" here again.

 

>And citing Kenneth Lay as an argument against Republican

>economic policies is like citing welfare receipients who

>create fake ID's in order to obtain multiple welfare checks

>each month (and who almost invariably support Democrats) as an

>argument against social programs and as an argument in favor

>of the claim that welfare receipients support the Democratic

>Party in order to steal money from hard-working taxpayers.

 

I know. And Republicans have been doing that for decades -- the "welfare queen" story was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. Well, it's time you people got a taste of your own medicine. And there's plenty more where that came from.

 

>The fact that particular criminals abuse a policy is hardly an

>indict of the policy itself.

 

Let me know when you succeed in getting Reagan to understand that.

[woodlawn]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>>You are absolutely correct. This has long been a pattern

>of

>>Doug's.

 

>Do you realize how frequently you take time out of your life

>to write posts about me? Doesn't think tell you something

>about the important role I play in that life of yours, as well

>as the barren nature that life?

 

No more frequently than you take time out from your life to respond to what I write, as you just did above. Does that mean your life is barren?

 

I make no bones about the fact that your behavior here is a continuing source of amusement to me, Doug. Where else -- other than the Rush Limbaugh Show -- can I find statements so rife with outrageous falsehoods on almost every issue of major public interest?

 

>And I'm pretty sure that there is nothing more pathetic than

>writing a post to someone to tell them how right they are

>about the critical things they said about another poster with

>whom you are having a disagreement.

 

I don't really give a shit whether you think it's pathetic, Doug. Why would I? If it amuses me, I'll continue to do it. There is, after all, absolutely nothing you can do about it.

 

>Are you really that

>desperate to feel fortified and liked that you can't refrain

>from these sorts of junior-high-level clique games? "Yeah,

>you're right - he is bad!" Do you hear yourself?

 

Here we go again with the amateur psychoanalysis for which you are renowned. It's something you resort to when you can't think of any way to answer the arguments in someone else's post. Which is a very frequent occurrence.

 

>>>All I did was to comment that in the face of evidence that

>>the

>>>majority of the American people think that universal health

>>>insurance is more important than tax cuts, the government

>>>opted for tax cuts. That is simply a statement of fact,

>not

>>>opinion.

>>

>>Again, absolutely correct.

>

>Again, absolutely pathetic.

 

The man is right, Doug. As you often do, you made up some shit that he never said and then started yelling at him for saying it. You may not like the fact that he and I both pointed out what you are doing, but we really don't care whether you like it. I don't know who it is you used to hang out with who let you get away with that kind of crap as a substitute for real argument, but you will just have to get used to the fact that you can't get away with it here. Deal with it.

[Paul Revere]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>About half of the people in the US pay no income taxes and

>another significant percentage pay little income taxes.

 

Where do you get such bogus statistics? That is such a lie it makes me crazy. Well certainly the unemployed don't pay much income tax, but out wonderful economic policy hasn't gotten the unemployment rate to quite 50% yet.

 

Lets have some facts please.

[Doug69]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>Nobody's. Enron's onetime CEO Jeff Skilling has not been

>charged with anything. And their last CEO, Ken Lay, also has

>been charged with nothing in the two years since the scandal

>broke. Why do you keep making things up?

 

One of two things is true about this this statement: (A) you have not heard that Enron CFO Andrew Fastow pleaded guilty two weeks ago pursuant to which he will be sentenced to 10 years in prison, an extraordinary sentence for a white collar crime; or (B) you knew full well that I meant the CFO and not the CEO, but decided to pretend that you didn't know and then accused me of making things up.

 

Which do you think is more pitiful? I agree - it's hard to say.

 

>If you keep making personal remarks like the above I will have

>to ask the moderators to delete your posts. If you can't play

>by the same rules as everyone else, leave.

 

Given your less than amicable relationship with the proprieter of this forum and his minions, I hardly think you're in any position to dictate who should stay or go.

 

But if you do decide that you want to help the moderators delete posts which violate the new civility policy, you may want to start with your own, including the one that had this little personal gem in it:

 

<<You are absolutely correct. This has long been a pattern of Doug's.>

 

To use your words - "If you can't play by the same rules as everyone else, leave."

 

>I seem to recall you going on and on and on about the thievery

>of Rosti. But for some reason you never mentioned that Rosti

>was sent to prison by Clinton's Justice Department. Don't

>ever use the term "intellectual honesty" here again.

 

I never accused the Clinton Administration of being lax about enforcement of the law when it came to Democrats. It is you who is accusing people of supporting the GOP in order to steal without consequence, and using Enron as an example even in the midst of the Bush Administration's aggressive prosecution of those who are responsible for the Enron Fraud. Merely to describe your rhetoric is to demonstrate its sickness.

[woodlawn]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>>Nobody's. Enron's onetime CEO Jeff Skilling has not been

>>charged with anything. And their last CEO, Ken Lay, also

>has

>>been charged with nothing in the two years since the scandal

>>broke. Why do you keep making things up?

 

>One of two things is true about this this statement: (A) you

>have not heard that Enron CFO Andrew Fastow pleaded guilty two

>weeks ago pursuant to which he will be sentenced to 10 years

>in prison, an extraordinary sentence for a white collar crime;

>or (B) you knew full well that I meant the CFO and not the

>CEO, but decided to pretend that you didn't know and then

>accused me of making things up.

 

Of course I had heard about Fastow. But you specifically referred to the CEO of Enron, a position he has never held. It is beyond absurd for you to demand that OTHERS take responsibility for translating YOUR posts so that they actually make sense in light of the facts. That is YOUR responsibility. If you aren't up to it, that's your problem.

 

 

>Which do you think is more pitiful? I agree - it's hard to

>say.

 

It's pitiful that you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions. But it's nothing new.

 

>Given your less than amicable relationship with the proprieter

>of this forum and his minions, I hardly think you're in any

>position to dictate who should stay or go.

 

Here's another example of your pattern of making shit up and pretending that another poster said it. As if we didn't have plenty of examples of that in this thread already.

 

>But if you do decide that you want to help the moderators

>delete posts which violate the new civility policy, you may

>want to start with your own, including the one that had this

>little personal gem in it:

>

><<You are absolutely correct. This has long been a pattern of

>Doug's.>

 

 

That refers to your posts. I didn't say anything about YOU. For example, I didn't say that you must have a barren life because you spend so much time yelling imprecations at me on a message board. Who do we know who said that?

 

 

>To use your words - "If you can't play by the same rules as

>everyone else, leave."

 

It's good advice. Take it.

 

 

>>I seem to recall you going on and on and on about the

>thievery

>>of Rosti. But for some reason you never mentioned that

>Rosti

>>was sent to prison by Clinton's Justice Department. Don't

>>ever use the term "intellectual honesty" here again.

 

>I never accused the Clinton Administration of being lax about

>enforcement of the law when it came to Democrats.

 

Nor did you acknowledge, while going on and on and on about Rosti as an example of how dishonest Democrats are, that it was also Democrats who exposed his crime and saw to it he was punished.

 

 

>It is you

>who is accusing people of supporting the GOP in order to steal

>without consequence, and using Enron as an example even in the

>midst of the Bush Administration's aggressive prosecution of

>those who are responsible for the Enron Fraud.

 

The only thing aggressive about the Bush administration is its bullshit. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling have been sitting in their mansions for two years without even being called before a grand jury, much less being prosecuted. I call that criminal negligence on the part of Bush's DOJ. And when does Bernie Ebbers get indicted? And Conrad Black? And Jack Grubman? What has the Bush DOJ and SEC been doing for the past three years while the nation's biggest mutual funds have robbed their shareholders blind? Why does Elliot Spitzer have to do all the work the Bush DOJ should be doing? What do they spend their time doing at the office, masturbating to Internet porn?

 

 

Merely to

>describe your rhetoric is to demonstrate its sickness.

 

You really don't seem to like the taste of your own medicine. But you'd better get used to it. Because it isn't going to stop.

[woodlawn]

>(2) The very poor in this country do get free medical care in

>the U.S. It's called Medicaid. This covers preventative

>care, medications, routine doctor vists, ER visits, and

>hospitalizations. Even illegal aliens can benefit from this!!

> There are also other programs available for the less than

>very poor (i.e. just plain poor).

 

The poor can get care through Medicaid if they meet the eligibility standards. You have probably read that in order to cope with budget shortfalls a number of states have changed eligibility standards in the past three years with the result that scores of thousands of Medicaid patients have been dropped from the program. That happens to be true.

 

 

>There is no simple solution to the

>problem of poverty.

 

True. But there is a solution to the problem of providing medical care for the poor -- provide it. Republicans never want to talk about what happens to people who need medical care but can't get it either through their own resources or existing government programs, because they know the voters would be revolted by what happens to such people. They learned not to talk about such things in 1995, when Gingrich blithely admitted to the media that welfare "reform" might mean that the children of welfare recipients would go to orphanages.

 

 

>(4) One can have universal health care coverage without

>having a single payer system (although a single payer system

>is a reasonable option). We have this for auto insurance.

>It's called assigned risk.

 

My understanding is that assigned risk auto plans are for people whose driving history is such that private plans will not insure them. That seems a reasonable alternative for people who can't get health insurance due to a preexisting condition. What about people who can't get medical insurance because they have no money left over after paying for food, clothing and shelter?

 

With regard to the preexisting condition issue, the whole basis of health insurance USED to be that an insurance pool collected premiums from people of many different ages and conditions and thus many different probabilities of filing claims for care. The premiums of those who did not need expensive care subsidized the claims of those who did. But if insurance companies cherry-pick only the healthiest customers and exclude everyone else, so that the less healthy pay exorbitant rates or go without, then insurance pools serve no purpose at all -- except to make money for the insurance companies.