Politically Incorrect.



Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Canuck

Guest
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> What a simplistic way to ignore all those that have no medical coverage
and
> can't afford to pay for medical visits. What is your solution? To ban government healthcare
> subsidies, even ban health insurance altogether, and let the free-market price all those illegal
> aliens right out of the
country
> while also pricing those citizens under the poverty-level out of life?

Here I was thinking you are a crusty old man and you break out the compassionate side.
 
T

The Pomeranian

Guest
G.T. wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> >>... When medical services are "free" people are going to use them for things that they wouldn't
> >>if they had to pay for it.
> >
> >
> > There's the crux of the matter. "Free" unequivocally means inelastic demand, and a lot of it. Of
> > course, it really isn't free. Doctors and nurses will parade around and say how much a national
> > (socialized) health care system is needed. What they are really saying is they want a job for
> > life with no risks and a guaranteed paycheck. Now who wouldn't love that? Let's all suck the ***
> > of the government forever.
> >
>
> What a simplistic way to ignore all those that have no medical coverage and can't afford to pay
> for medical visits.

Retard, where did I say anyone should be ignored? What I more or less said was the medical industry,
not the customers of it, shouldn't get government *** sucking privileges at _everyone else's_
expense, including all those poor folks. I say that because I care about the customers, including
all those poor folks.

> What is your solution?

To steal Grinch's Cold War line (sort of): "Oh, that's amusing, _solve the healthcare crisis_ in a
usenet post." Thanks, but no thanks.

> To ban government healthcare subsidies, even ban health insurance altogether, and let the
> free-market price all those illegal aliens right out of the country while also pricing those
> citizens under the poverty-level out of life?

Retard, where, how, and why do you dream all this **** up? Do you know why inelastic demand, and a
lot of it, is a problem? For your benefit, the answer is in the question.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What a simplistic way to ignore all those that have no medical coverage
and
> can't afford to pay for medical visits. What is your solution? To ban government healthcare
> subsidies, even ban health insurance altogether, and let the free-market price all those illegal
> aliens right out of the
country
> while also pricing those citizens under the poverty-level out of life?

So your way is to tax me while I'm working so that I can't save any money for retirement and then
let the system callapse after all of the boomers hit retirement age. I must say, I like the way you
are willing to trade my freedom for someone else's.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Ix5Q9.3736$134.448672[email protected]...
> > "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > But you see, if it were a joke making fun of the pronouciation by
some
> > > > white southern cracker it would be OK.
> > >
> > > That would be the same thing as the original joke.
> >
> > I see, you are an equal opportunity sourpuss.
>
> How is that?
>
> I offered no judgements on whether ethnic or racial jokes are tasteful/tasteless. My posts only
> tried to define what is and isn't 'racial'.

In order to be racist a comment has to be desired to be racist. A comment about someone being black
and being negative about that person isn't enough to make it a racist comment. A comment about a
Chinese accent may be hurtful to someone especially sensitive but that doesn't rise to the level of
racism and you seem incapable of knowing the difference.

All you have to do is to turn on network news any day of the week and you'll see network newscasters
slandering men in general, white men in particular, anyone with money, anyone that opposes raising
taxes, anyone that wants to straighten out social security so that it really will be a security net
(check out Paterson's comments lately) or anyone that has any sort of conservative position even if
that person is a died-in-the-wool extreme left wing liberal. It is perfectly OK in the general media
to degrade these people and stultify their ideas.

Some guy named Goldberg wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he took that extremist
conservative position, that network news should try to deliver a balanced view of the political
spectrum. He reported that CBS news and all of the other network news bureaus, as shown by study
after study, were wildly liberal and as a result quite by accident and not design, the liberal view
some but not most of the news delivered.

Goldberg admits that he has never in his life voted for a Republican, that he has consistantly
supported liberal causes. He only felt that the news should be reported even-handedly and without a
hidden (actually who believes that it is hidden in the least?) liberal agenda.

He was driven from CBS, his 20 year career as a news reporter destroyed. CBS in the form of such
notables as Dan Rather declared him persona non grata and Rather refered to Goldberg, a Jewish
liberal if ever there was one, as having a "well known conservative political agenda".

The point of all this is that the meaning of racist and racism has been distorted far beyond what it
really is by people who are staggeringly wealthy and whose feelings of guilt for doing so little to
earn that wealth has led them to believe and the entire white race has it too easy and that we ought
to be taxed into oblivion to pay for every supposed affront to any non-white minority. Since most of
them live in almost entirely white suburbs or white enclaves where their children go to almost
entirely white highend schools they haven't a clue what is happening out here in the real world
where 97% of the white men have to work their asses off to make a lower middle class living and who
are taxed to the breaking point.

Well, all you have to do is read history to find that blacks were the one's that sold blacks into
slavery the largest percentage of the time. Arab traders would pay coastal tribes for black slaves
and those coastal tribes would raid inland tribes for slaves. Whites were a long ways down the
slavery food chain and that is a fact. In many areas of Africa TODAY slavery is still practiced
though it is generally given lip service as being illegal. Consider where the idea of black Muslims
came from - you couldn't be freed by a Muslim unless you declared yourself a Muslim! Do we hear
about those people actually practicing slavery as being evil? No, all of today's white Americans are
held as guilty despite the fact that less than 1% of them come from families that ever held slaves.
I am forced to pay taxes that are used by my government to give advantages to blacks that I never
had and despite the fact that my family didn't come to this country until after the civil war and
despite the fact that my heritage is Croatian, Irish and Jewish - all groups that were held as
slaves or near slaves. The word "slave" comes from the name of my race.

And I see dispicable people like Kyle suggest to me that I'm racist!

Maybe you Canadians ought to study a bit more of your own history with special interest in the
treatment of Indians and Inuit. And then perhaps you could stop telling Americans what is racist and
what isn't.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"cucycln" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Tom....point out your source of facts on this.... or you just shooting
from
> the hip because you are so bored and have nothing else to do? again!

> > The pathetic part about all of this is the patent denial of Canadians
when
> > there is an entire market segment of the US health care system devoted entirely to Canadians.

Isn't it about time you try to school us all in what racist ideas I have?

San Francisco, CA - While American politicians tout Canadian health care and lead bus tours across
the border, Canadians themselves increasingly board buses for the United States to seek treatment
and purchase prescription drugs not available under their own government plan. This is according to
Lessons from the North: Bus Travelers Bring the Reality of Rationed Health Care and Price-Controlled
Drugs over the Border, a briefing released today by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI).

On February 3, ABC aired a report by correspondent Deborah Amos in Toronto, depicting a country
"struggling with universal healthcare." Most of Amos' report was taken up by grim descriptions of
crowded hospitals: "The emergency rooms in Toronto hospitals are so clogged this winter, patients
wait hours for critical treatment," Amos reported. "They sleep on stretchers in drafty hallways. And
wait days for a hospital bed."

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
- P.J. O'Rourke

By William McArthur, former chief coroner for British Columbia. He is a palliative care physician
and senior fellow in health policy studies at the Fraser Institute.

(speaking about Canada's health care system) "Canadians over the age of 65 use health care at four
times the rate of those under 65 and thus are more exposed to the deficiencies. Moreover, the
treatments elders need most often are the ones where the worst shortages exist. According to the
Fraser Institute's annual survey of hospital waiting lists, the median patient waits 70% longer than
is medically reasonable, in the view of their physicians. Waits for cardiac surgery are 145% longer
than medically reasonable, 90% longer for orthopedics (hips and knees) and 75% longer for
ophthalmologic (cataracts and lens replacement) surgery." (Note the term "medically reasonable" - do
you understand what that means?)

From the von Mises Institute:

"This popular superficial view of Canada's health care system as the national "sacred trust" and the
envy of the rest of the world does not reveal how poorly informed people really are about how health
care is funded and delivered. In fact, if Canadians knew as much as they think they do about the
economic and moral workings of Medicare, they might not be as enthusiastic as they are about their
cherished right to "free" health care."

In case you think that the Canadian government doesn't know it what about this statement by a
Canadian MP?

"Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today 200,000 Canadians are still on waiting
lines in hospitals. But if they are wealthy or desperate they could jump the queue and fly down to
the United States for treatment. They could pay cash for health care. If that is not two tier, if
that is not American style health care, I do not know what is."

The facts are that Canada has benefitted from the fact that they are a far healthier population from
the start then the much more greatly mixed American population. They admit as much. Also the
Canadian medical system is one of medical rationing and not one of medical service. This works
passably well when the population is young and healthy but when Canada's baby boomers start putting
a greater strain on their system as is just beginning, it is likely to collapse like the house of
cards that it is.
 
T

The Pomeranian

Guest
Canuck wrote:
>
> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > What a simplistic way to ignore all those that have no medical coverage
> and
> > can't afford to pay for medical visits. What is your solution? To ban government healthcare
> > subsidies, even ban health insurance altogether, and let the free-market price all those illegal
> > aliens right out of the
> country
> > while also pricing those citizens under the poverty-level out of life?
>
> Here I was thinking you are a crusty old man and you break out the compassionate side.

If he cared about poor people he would stop being such a moron.

Was that PC to call him a retard and a moron?
 
S

Steve

Guest
<http://www.michellemalkin.com/bio.html>

Very smart and also a "babe!!"

On 12/30/02 7:08 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> But you see, if it were a joke making fun of the pronouciation by
> some
>>>>> white southern cracker it would be OK.
>>>>
>>>> That would be the same thing as the original joke.
>>>
>>> I see, you are an equal opportunity sourpuss.
>>
>> How is that?
>>
>> I offered no judgements on whether ethnic or racial jokes are tasteful/tasteless. My posts only
>> tried to define what is and isn't 'racial'.
>
> In order to be racist a comment has to be desired to be racist. A comment about someone being
> black and being negative about that person isn't enough to make it a racist comment. A comment
> about a Chinese accent may be hurtful to someone especially sensitive but that doesn't rise to the
> level of racism and you seem incapable of knowing the difference.
>
> All you have to do is to turn on network news any day of the week and you'll see network
> newscasters slandering men in general, white men in particular, anyone with money, anyone that
> opposes raising taxes, anyone that wants to straighten out social security so that it really will
> be a security net (check out Paterson's comments lately) or anyone that has any sort of
> conservative position even if that person is a died-in-the-wool extreme left wing liberal. It is
> perfectly OK in the general media to degrade these people and stultify their ideas.
>
> Some guy named Goldberg wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he took that
> extremist conservative position, that network news should try to deliver a balanced view of the
> political spectrum. He reported that CBS news and all of the other network news bureaus, as shown
> by study after study, were wildly liberal and as a result quite by accident and not design, the
> liberal view some but not most of the news delivered.
>
> Goldberg admits that he has never in his life voted for a Republican, that he has consistantly
> supported liberal causes. He only felt that the news should be reported even-handedly and without
> a hidden (actually who believes that it is hidden in the least?) liberal agenda.
>
> He was driven from CBS, his 20 year career as a news reporter destroyed. CBS in the form of such
> notables as Dan Rather declared him persona non grata and Rather refered to Goldberg, a Jewish
> liberal if ever there was one, as having a "well known conservative political agenda".
>
> The point of all this is that the meaning of racist and racism has been distorted far beyond what
> it really is by people who are staggeringly wealthy and whose feelings of guilt for doing so
> little to earn that wealth has led them to believe and the entire white race has it too easy and
> that we ought to be taxed into oblivion to pay for every supposed affront to any non-white
> minority. Since most of them live in almost entirely white suburbs or white enclaves where their
> children go to almost entirely white highend schools they haven't a clue what is happening out
> here in the real world where 97% of the white men have to work their asses off to make a lower
> middle class living and who are taxed to the breaking point.
>
> Well, all you have to do is read history to find that blacks were the one's that sold blacks into
> slavery the largest percentage of the time. Arab traders would pay coastal tribes for black slaves
> and those coastal tribes would raid inland tribes for slaves. Whites were a long ways down the
> slavery food chain and that is a fact. In many areas of Africa TODAY slavery is still practiced
> though it is generally given lip service as being illegal. Consider where the idea of black
> Muslims came from - you couldn't be freed by a Muslim unless you declared yourself a Muslim! Do we
> hear about those people actually practicing slavery as being evil? No, all of today's white
> Americans are held as guilty despite the fact that less than 1% of them come from families that
> ever held slaves. I am forced to pay taxes that are used by my government to give advantages to
> blacks that I never had and despite the fact that my family didn't come to this country until
> after the civil war and despite the fact that my heritage is Croatian, Irish and Jewish - all
> groups that were held as slaves or near slaves. The word "slave" comes from the name of my race.
>
> And I see dispicable people like Kyle suggest to me that I'm racist!
>
> Maybe you Canadians ought to study a bit more of your own history with special interest in the
> treatment of Indians and Inuit. And then perhaps you could stop telling Americans what is racist
> and what isn't.
>
>
 
C

Canuck

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In order to be racist a comment has to be desired to be racist. A comment about someone being
> black and being negative about that person isn't
enough
> to make it a racist comment. A comment about a Chinese accent may be
hurtful
> to someone especially sensitive but that doesn't rise to the level of
racism
> and you seem incapable of knowing the difference.

Definitions of such are subjective, therefore, it is not possible for everyone to have the
same view.

BTW, if you don't think it matters, how about sending that joke to everyone at work? If there isn't
a flap, then you'll know that you're correct.
 
C

Cucycln

Guest
I see your point......but every senior care system is under attack. Look at Medicare......it's
ignoring the seniors, people can't afford the necessary drugs they need in the US too! You said that
Canadians are coming across the boarder for drugs they can't get in Canada.....but then US citizens
are running to get CHEAPER drugs then they can buy in the US....it's major problem for Canadians as
it is driving up the price there too! Then there is Mexico.....where everyone is going! So it's
major problem everywhere!

What I fail to see is that US entire system that's catering to Canadians.............? Or did I read
you wrong? "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "cucycln" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Tom....point out your source of facts on this.... or you just shooting
> from
> > the hip because you are so bored and have nothing else to do? again!
>
> > > The pathetic part about all of this is the patent denial of Canadians
> when
> > > there is an entire market segment of the US health care system devoted entirely to Canadians.
>
> Isn't it about time you try to school us all in what racist ideas I have?
>
> San Francisco, CA - While American politicians tout Canadian health care
and
> lead bus tours across the border, Canadians themselves increasingly board buses for the United
> States to seek treatment and purchase prescription drugs not available under their own government
> plan. This is according to Lessons from the North: Bus Travelers Bring the Reality of Rationed
> Health Care and Price-Controlled Drugs over the Border, a briefing released today by the Pacific
> Research Institute (PRI).
>
> On February 3, ABC aired a report by correspondent Deborah Amos in
Toronto,
> depicting a country "struggling with universal healthcare." Most of Amos' report was taken up by
> grim descriptions of crowded hospitals: "The emergency rooms in Toronto hospitals are so clogged
> this winter, patients wait hours for critical treatment," Amos reported. "They sleep on
stretchers
> in drafty hallways. And wait days for a hospital bed."
>
>
> "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
> - P.J. O'Rourke
>
>
> By William McArthur, former chief coroner for British Columbia. He is a palliative care physician
> and senior fellow in health policy studies at
the
> Fraser Institute.
>
> (speaking about Canada's health care system) "Canadians over the age of 65 use health care at four
> times the rate of those under 65 and thus are more exposed to the deficiencies. Moreover, the
> treatments elders need most
often
> are the ones where the worst shortages exist. According to the Fraser Institute's annual survey of
> hospital waiting lists, the median patient waits 70% longer than is medically reasonable, in the
> view of their physicians. Waits for cardiac surgery are 145% longer than medically reasonable, 90%
> longer for orthopedics (hips and knees) and 75% longer for ophthalmologic (cataracts and lens
> replacement) surgery." (Note the term "medically reasonable" - do you understand what that means?)
>
> From the von Mises Institute:
>
> "This popular superficial view of Canada's health care system as the national "sacred trust" and
> the envy of the rest of the world does not reveal how poorly informed people really are about how
> health care is
funded
> and delivered. In fact, if Canadians knew as much as they think they do about the economic and
> moral workings of Medicare, they might not be as enthusiastic as they are about their cherished
> right to "free" health
care."
>
>
>
> In case you think that the Canadian government doesn't know it what about this statement by a
> Canadian MP?
>
> "Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today 200,000 Canadians are still on
> waiting lines in hospitals. But if they are wealthy or desperate they could jump the queue and fly
> down to the United States
for
> treatment. They could pay cash for health care. If that is not two tier,
if
> that is not American style health care, I do not know what is."
>
> The facts are that Canada has benefitted from the fact that they are a far healthier population
> from the start then the much more greatly mixed American population. They admit as much. Also the
> Canadian medical system
is
> one of medical rationing and not one of medical service. This works
passably
> well when the population is young and healthy but when Canada's baby
boomers
> start putting a greater strain on their system as is just beginning, it is likely to collapse like
> the house of cards that it is.
>
>
 
G

G.T.

Guest
Steve wrote:
> <http://www.michellemalkin.com/bio.html>
>
> Very smart and also a "babe!!"
>

Poster child for the fascists. Why did we ever let her parents immigrate with the rest of the
unwashed masses?

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
G

G.T.

Guest
Canuck wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In order to be racist a comment has to be desired to be racist. A comment about someone being
>>black and being negative about that person isn't
>
> enough
>
>>to make it a racist comment. A comment about a Chinese accent may be
>
> hurtful
>
>>to someone especially sensitive but that doesn't rise to the level of
>
> racism
>
>>and you seem incapable of knowing the difference.
>
>
>
>
>
> Definitions of such are subjective, therefore, it is not possible for everyone to have the
> same view.
>
> BTW, if you don't think it matters, how about sending that joke to everyone at work? If there
> isn't a flap, then you'll know that you're correct.
>

Now how would that be a test since everyone is afraid of the suede denim secret PC police? You never
know when your cubicle neighbor is a spy for the PC fascists.

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
C

Canuck

Guest
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Now how would that be a test since everyone is afraid of the suede denim secret PC police? You
> never know when your cubicle neighbor is a spy for the PC fascists.

Like I said before, on such a subjective matter it is not possible for everyone to have the
same view.
 
K

Kyle Legate

Guest
On 3 Jan 2003, Tom Kunich wrote:

> Maybe you just don't understand this country. In this country we don't forcibly lock up insane
> people. It is probably too much for you to understand that insane people have some rights as
> well and unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others it is against the law to
> detain them.
>
So which is it? Either you don't forcibly lock up the mentally ill, or you do forcibly lock them up
if they pose a danger to themselves or others. You can't have it both ways.

> get insane people or drug addicts or whatever the 'cause dujour' is,
>
Since correcting all your mistakes is too big a job for Tom Paterson alone, even if he is retired,
let me give you a freebie: du jour is two words.

... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected] Kyle Legate [email protected]

Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca moon
musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
 
K

Kyle Legate

Guest
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
> > On 3 Jan 2003, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe you just don't understand this country. In this country we don't forcibly lock up insane
> > > people. It is probably too much for you to understand that insane people have some rights as
> > > well and unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others it is against the law to
> > > detain them.
> > >
> > So which is it? Either you don't forcibly lock up the mentally ill, or you do forcibly lock them
> > up if they pose a danger to themselves or others. You can't have it both ways.
>
> I didn't think that you'd have an answer to the real world outside of your hallucinations.
>
> The actions of all Liberals are quite predictable. When confronted with the truth they either:
>
> 1) deny it
> 2) lie about it
> 3) change the subject.
>
You must be liberal because you are attempting point number 3. Answer my question, and no lying
because I have experience in this area: my gf's mom has recently been temporarily committed twice
for her paranoid schizophrenia.

... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected] Kyle Legate [email protected]

Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca moon
musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > That is a complete and utter fabrication. Network news tried to pass off every single thing that
> > the "homeless" activists decided was best for their cause but apparently you haven't kept up.
> > Several homeless activists came clean. They fabricated almost every fact about the homeless.
> > When the best estimates were that this country had about 300,000 homeless (something that should
> > have been shocking enough) they got the network news hacks to report that there were 19 million
> > and climbing homeless. They got the network news moguls to report that most homeless were able
> > bodied people. That was a lie. Most homeless are insane or drug or alcohol addicts. Able bodied
> > men are seldom homeless and find that there is a lot of help from the government and from all
> > sorts of charities. I personally talked to some of those and they told me that the problem
> > wasn't getting food of temporary shelter but putting together the trememdous about of money it
> > takes for first and last month's rent and a security deposit. Welfare has taken care of that for
> > two decades now.
>
> Not being able to afford first and last still means homeless, you moron.

I note with great pleasure that you purposely ignored the part where I said that able bodied people
are only temporarily homeless. Mostly for reasons such as moving to a new state or especially in the
cases of young men - living beyond their means for too long. They almost always recover from this
plight and there are all sorts of government and charitable help for them when they reach that
point. But if you aren't willing to tell the truth about even the smallest detail of your phony
beliefs you certainly aren't going to see a brazen attempt to lie about the homeless.

> And now that you bring up the insane, which I wasn't going to go into, why are they on the
> streets? They can't work to support themselves. Many of them don't want to be on the streets.
> Could it be because your hero cut back federal funds for inpatient psychiatric hospitals sending
> them all out on the street?

Maybe you just don't understand this country. In this country we don't forcibly lock up insane
people. It is probably too much for you to understand that insane people have some rights as well
and unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others it is against the law to detain
them. I understand that you think that everyone is out to get insane people or drug addicts or
whatever the 'cause dujour' is, but the facts are that insane people are homeless because they
choose to be so. Most can commit themselves voluntarily any time and be taken care of. That's more
than a sane lower income white man can get.

> >>Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?
> >
> > Network news reported that there were many families living under the poverty level. Government
> > welfare offices reported the same thing. When it was investigated it was found that "poverty
> > level" was a certain income level for a family. If they had three kids the poverty level was
> > something like $30,000 a year.
>
> 2002 level for a 5 person family is $21,000. Please post your budget in your reply on how you
> would buy a home and several cars on $21,000 a year.

Please cite a reliable article about all of these homeless families that you claim are out there. I
really would like to see where you get your wild-eyed ideas.

> >>Why are there undernourished children in this great country of ours?
> >
> > That was covered 25 years ago. Food is not a problem. Nutrician is. And most of the time it
> > isn't because of poverty or lack of food. It is because of divorced mother homes and the mother
> > often has little or no education and doesn't understand what nutrician means. And one of the
> > primary reasons that young ignorant mothers were around was because of the culture of sex freely
> > spread by the general media in this country. Which is another reason that other more
> > conservative societies see us as little more than animals.
>
> You mean the societies that wrap their women from head to toe?

Again, when confronted with facts you change the subject. Greg, you are the one that claims that
there are large numbers of undernourished kids out there. I used to hear that in my neighborhood
while I was growing up. And yet I never saw it. Only that claim that it was so.

> >>Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?
> >
> > What is adequate healthcare? Few aliens have any problems getting free medical care. Few
> > minorities have problems getting free medical care. The one's that suffer most from lack of
> > medical care are low income white people whom the government and most of all Liberals do not
> > feel any pain for.
>
> You keep saying that "aliens" get better care than citizens. Please point me to even the most
> right-wing website out there that has any so-called proof of that favoritism.

Please point me to your statistics that prove otherwise. Why are you claiming that there are so many
people out there with insufficient health care. In fact, most people without health care are young
men who are healthy to begin with. And most of the numbers quoted about how many people are without
health care purposely hide the fact that it is a rotating population. That is, that one family is
without healthcare for the three months it takes to find a new job. During that time another person
becomes jobless and OPTS not to buy COBRA. Granted the COBRA coverage is expensive and many many not
be in a finanacial position to do so.

But your suggestion that there are large groups of people going without health care for long periods
of time is a completely inaccurate depiction.

> > The problem with you Greg is that you are too stupid to think about any of this beyond reading
> > the occasional lefty news reports. You don't go down to the local emergency rooms and see them
> > filled to overflowing with aliens while low income citizens get nothing.
>
> I've taken my uninsured friends and neighbors to the County ER several times. Nobody was picking
> "aliens" over my friends. Tell me, Tom, how do you pick out an alien without asking for their
> papers? Do you have some magical powers to discern between legal and illegal? Or is it just the
> color of their skin and/or ESL?

Here's a clue - they can't speak English at all and they don't have any identification.

My sister-in-law (whose is a Filipina) works for the local emergency hospital in the book keeping
department. Perhaps you can tell her that there aren't any illegal aliens using the county services.

> > In France a homeless person lives about two years. In the USA they are fat until they die of the
> > effects of their addictions or are carted off to the mental hospitals where you'd argue they
> > shouldn't be held against their will.
>
> I have never seen a fat homeless person. Do you hallucinate these images of fat homeless people?
> And they are no longer carted off to mental hospitals because your hero axed federal contributions
> to their budgets LONG ago.

I suggest that you've never gone down to the local missions.

> > You WANT to believe that the USA is evil because you want to hate a lot more than you want to
> > know the truth.
>
> I don't hate anything about the USA except for evil, hate-mongering, racist, sexist ***** like
> you. And you call me sick. What a joke.

Every time you write the hate pours out of you. If I were you I'd seek some professional help. But
you're obviously too busy running your bosses business for him and making him millions while he pays
you a mere pitance.
 
T

Tokugawa

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
> >
> > United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer system)
> > ...................................3%
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the USA the claims forms are long
> and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4 times for further information.
>

snip

> Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA where our less than perfect
> system is still superior to a system that would often take longer to get a patient in than his
> expected lifespan with a serious illness.

"With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?

The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.

There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice versa.
Prescription drugs comes to mind.

Many Americans find themselves in Medicaid "spend down" mode. After they lose their health
insurance, they must improvish themselves before they can get life-saving heath care. Not a pretty
picture if you ever have experienced this happen to somebody. This does not happen in Canada.

For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites. Only the .01% of the population who are
stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives benefit from the present system. Plus the people who
process claims for insurance companies. Their purpose: deny claims. The better they are, the higher
their salary. For the 99.99% of Americans who don't own stock in health insurance companies, nor
work for health insurance companies, there is no upside.
 
C

Chiefhiawatha

Guest
Will you pedants please shut up. You are not impressing anyone with your knowledge of politics,
labor unions, social issues, or anything else.
 
T

Tokugawa

Guest
> > Now do the same for a universal single payer health care plan. Don't mess around. Put numbers on
> > it and tell how much of the GDP it will likely chew up.
>
> Depends on how it is funded. It's besides the point anyway, I don't know if a universal single
> payer plan is the way to go. I do know with health costs increasing far more rapidly than the
> current rate of inflation (my monthly premiums went from $242 to $255, that's only 5% but my
> benefits dropped considerably), and approximately 44 million uninsured citizens something clearly
> has to be done.

Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):

United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer system)
...................................3%

Why?

1. Private insurers' number one priority in a capitalist system is to make a profit. All other
considerations are secondary.

2. Private insurers have a financial incentive to deny claims. They work very hard to deny claims. A
friend of mind recently had her claim denied unjustly. She pursued legal means and won her case.
Good news, you say? WRONG! It cost her $20,000 in legal fees (which, of course, are not
reimbursed) and it delayed payment to her for two years WHEN SHE REALLY NEEDED THE MONEY. The
f***ing insurance company hired private investigators who violated her privacy, and produced
evidence which did not hold up in court. In addition, she suffered from post-tramatic stress
disorder after the trauma she received when she found out about the snooping.

3. The U.S. has 3,000 different health insurance entities, each with their own internal set of
rules and regulations as to which claims are paid. We're talking about a lot of wasteful
paperwork here.

4. The 3,000 different entities each must 'sell' their product or go out of business. So currently,
some of your health care dollar goes to pay for marketing and advertising costs. Advertising like
those 'feel good' television commercials intended to establish 'brand identity'. Brand identity
is when companies get more for their services because people remember their name. It adds nothing
to health care. Zero. Zip. Nada. The null set.

While high medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the United States, nobody is ever
denied necessary medical care in Canada at a hospital.

As compared to the way the Canadian system is financed, the U.S. system is like a leech which sucks
your blood. It produces a lot of harm and it provides no benefit, except to stockholders and
sometimes to extremely wealthy executives, who make up 0.01% of the population. Tough break for the
other 99.99% of us.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
> > >
> > > United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer
> > > system) ...................................3%
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the USA
the
> > claims forms are long and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4
times
> > for further information.
> >
> > Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA
where
> > our less than perfect system is still superior to a system that would
often
> > take longer to get a patient in than his expected lifespan with a
serious
> > illness.
>
> "With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?

Sure, it sucks if you don't have money. But you DO understand that in Canada if you have all the
money in the world you can't get any better medical care than a homeless person? While the level of
medical care in Canada is very high in some regards, in others it sucks. And the average medical
care is lower and much slower than in the USA. This is the same experience as all other countries
with socialized medicine. Canada has always been held up as an example because their system seemed
to be actually working though closer scrutiny showed that the reason that it was working was because
of the healthier, younger population with lower numbers of chronically ill or severely ill patients.

> The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.

The bottom line is that it doesn't and the proof is that all of the major US cities along the
borders have entire departments that do nothing but service Canadians who come across the border for
medical care.

> There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice versa.
> Prescription drugs comes to mind.

Prescription drugs in Canada can cost 1/3rd what they do in the USA. The reason is that they are
subsidized by the Canadian Health Care system. The down side of this is that the system is EXTREMELY
slow to allow newer medicines so most of the prescrition drugs available in Canada are several years
behind those prescribed in the USA. So by crossing the border you can get cheap drugs IF YOU HAPPEN
to have a prescription for the drugs that are sold there.

Please be aware that older drugs are usually outdated because newer drugs are more efficacious or
have fewer or less serious side effects and this is nothing to poo-poo since large numbers of people
are made ill or die each year from drug side effects.

> Many Americans find themselves in Medicaid "spend down" mode. After they lose their health
> insurance, they must improvish themselves before they can get life-saving heath care. Not a pretty
> picture if you ever have experienced this happen to somebody. This does not happen in Canada.

Yeah, instead they are put in a line and die waiting for medical care.

> For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites. Only the .01% of the population who
> are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives benefit from the present system. Plus the people
> who process claims for insurance companies. Their purpose: deny claims. The better they are, the
> higher their salary. For the 99.99% of Americans who don't own stock in health insurance
> companies, nor work for health insurance companies, there is no upside.

Last time I looked, 80% of the population was covered by medical insurance. What would lead you to
believe otherwise? I'm sure that there are tons of insurance company employees who would like to
deny claims for a higher salary but that is a complete fabrication on your part. My ex-inlaws worked
in the insurance industry as does the past president of our cycling club. They have a lot of bad
things to say about the actions of insurance companies but it all boils down to slowing payments not
throwing them out.

I'm sure that you'll scream about the 20% who aren't covered but if you look it up you'll find that
that group is very high in healthy young men who OPT to have no insurance and save the money. Also
in that group are people that are between jobs and people who are under government programs and
don't need other insurance.

Also there are people that need insurance and don't have it. There are people in Canada dying
without health care because there is none available in their areas.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]cmail.cis.mcmaster.ca...
> On 3 Jan 2003, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > Maybe you just don't understand this country. In this country we don't forcibly lock up insane
> > people. It is probably too much for you to understand that insane people have some rights as
> > well and unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others it is against the law to
> > detain them.
> >
> So which is it? Either you don't forcibly lock up the mentally ill, or you do forcibly lock them
> up if they pose a danger to themselves or others. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't think that you'd have an answer to the real world outside of your hallucinations.

The actions of all Liberals are quite predictable. When confronted with the truth they either:

1) deny it
2) lie about it
3) change the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.