Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 6 Sep 2009 11:32 On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >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> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. > >Spare me the bullshit. From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005. "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious, sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in awaiting surgery." I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many expert witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if the greatest legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care system results in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or you for that matter, to disagree.
From: Carbon on 6 Sep 2009 12:30 On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:32:46 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: >>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> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >> >>Spare me the bullshit. > > From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005. > > "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious, > sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin > and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have > life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in > awaiting surgery." > > I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many expert > witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if the greatest > legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care system results > in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or you for that matter, > to disagree. I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh?
From: William Clark on 6 Sep 2009 13:07 In article <u9h7a51l5034b5p3c9l9qhb00fs924uo22(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:13:12 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)conramp.net> > wrote: > > >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. > > Complete rubbish. > > 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. So, Jack, tell us about your latest round of golf. How as it? Or have you just returned here hoping that the humiliation of your call on the November election has been forgotten? Because it hasn't.
From: William Clark on 6 Sep 2009 13:07 In article <4aa3e396$0$4943$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:32:46 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > > On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > > wrote: > >>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> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 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. > >> > >>Spare me the bullshit. > > > > From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005. > > > > "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious, > > sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin > > and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have > > life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in > > awaiting surgery." > > > > I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many expert > > witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if the greatest > > legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care system results > > in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or you for that matter, > > to disagree. > > I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh? Or anywhere else, for that matter.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 6 Sep 2009 13:34
On Sep 5, 3:51 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:32:12 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >They want to take something like 50 billion from medicare...and they > >will have to ration; anyone with an ability to think the issue through > >knows this. IMHO rationing will have to happen anyways. We can't give > >everyone the best care possible. I don't like the idea of this > >happening through the govt. It's a power I would not like to see the > >govt have. It's too open to abuse if and when you get abusive leaders, > >that come along from time to time, as history has shown us. > > Now that argument makes sense to me. (Unlike the arguments which > simply state that the state will ration, without mentioning how that > is different from Big Business rationing). > > I agree that rationing will continue either way, and that it is > scary to think of Big Brother controlling it. > > I am curious though about who is making these decisions in places > where the socialized medicine is via the government. Has it been a > problem? > > There is also a chance of the reverse happening - to get votes, the > state can pay for anything and everything, whether it makes sense or > not. > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison Right now, insurance companies, individuals, health care providers and the sick people themselves make the decisions. What I really don't like about the system in Canada is it's a govt only thing. Even if you have the money to pay for the treatment, you can't get it in Canada if the govt says no. Right now a Canadian could go to the Us, but that could change....... |