From: dene on 5 Sep 2009 23:07
"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> You are in denial. The US system rations care to a *much* greater extent
> than the Canadian system does. In Canada if you're sick and you need
> expensive care, you get it, period. No credit checks, no fighting with
> insurance companies, no paperwork, no bullshit. Here--and you know
> this--if you get an expensive illness you may not get the care you need,
> even if you have insurance. Why? Because INSURANCE COMPANIES RATION
> CARE. This rationing can be based on such non-medical factors as
> quarterly profits, likelihood of getting away with it, et cetera. Now,
> I'm not going to google up a thousand more links like the one above, but
> they're out there. And you know it.
I do not know it because rationing or denialor delay of benefits has not
ever happened, in my business experience, or to myself as an insured person.
In my own experience, I got a physical within days of the request. Then got
a followup colonscopy within a week. My wife, who has had 9 knee surgeries,
has never had to wait or be rationed for this attention. This prompt
service doesn't happen in your country of origin.....and you know it.
As for googling, irresponsible people playing the victim card are easy to
find. What's harder to find is the whole story.
From: Jack Hollis on 6 Sep 2009 10:18
On 06 Sep 2009 02:38:47 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> In Canada if you're sick and you need
>expensive care, you get it, period.
Canadians get it all right, but not the way they think. Canada's
health care rationing kills.
"When it comes to getting access to potentially lifesaving or
life-prolonging new cancer drugs, universal health care in Canada is a
myth, a new report says.
What's available free to one patient in one province is not available
to a similar patient with the same cancer somewhere else in the
country - a hodgepodge approach to funding drugs that is costing
lives, according to a report issued yesterday by the Cancer Advocacy
As many as 100 patients younger than 60 with a form of aggressive
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma died between March 2001 and April 2004 in
provinces that delayed paying for a new drug called rituximab,
according to an article in the group's annual report card on cancer
From: Jack Hollis on 6 Sep 2009 10:29
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:13:12 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)conramp.net>
>The problem here is that Hollis just read words that zombietime.com
>wrote, and has no idea what the original thought behind them happened
>to be. The out of context argument is absolutely valid. The authors
>were NOT advocates of those quotes in zombietime.com. Their book was
>a collection of possibilities that a corrupt government might use.
This show that Holdren advocates these extreme measure in the US, not
in some imaginary corrupt country.
"To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to
use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists
ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For
example, under the United States Constitution, effective
population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that
empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general
welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very
broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory
population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory
abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the
population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough
to justify compulsion, however."
To tell you the truth, this guy is much worse that Van Jones, who was
just forced to resign his White House post. Jones was just a
delusional fool. Holdren is a truly dangerous person.
From: Jack Hollis on 6 Sep 2009 10:30
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:17:17 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)conramp.net>
> Why don't you do a little research and see what the book was all
>about? All you do is suck up to anyone else who throws out troll
>bait. In the first place there were four authors of this book.
>There's nothing to refute because it wasn't advocacy. You just attach
>to others posts without using the minimal brain that you have.
>Try reading up on it.
Bobby, perhaps you could quote the passages in the book that back up
what you are saying.
From: Carbon on 6 Sep 2009 10:43
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:18:28 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 06 Sep 2009 02:38:47 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>> In Canada if you're sick and you need expensive care, you get it,
> Canadians get it all right, but not the way they think. Canada's
> health care rationing kills.
Spare me the bullshit.