DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: crocat on October 08, 2008, 11:17:34 AM
-
Here in Florida, the Lee County Chief of police is in trouble for using Obama's whole name - and I read this a.m. about McCain not using Obama's name..... both appear to be slanderous insults of the first order.
Give me a fucking break.
Me thinks this a presidential campaign run on affirmative action.
cro
-
This Barack HUSSEIN Obama stuff is, as you know, done to surreptitiously accuse Obama of being a Muslim.
Calling him "That one", is rude.
None of this is very important. McCain should be less rude. Your chief of police should just use two names. People didn't elect him to campaign for McCain.
If this does not happen, it will make very little difference.
-
Common courtesy says you don't refer to another person in the room as "that one," especially if you know his name. Please don't pretend this is news to you.
Similarly, the "I was only using his full name" bullshit. Are there TWO Barak Obama's? Does anyone else get called by their full names? McCain? Lieberman? Palin? The use of the full name is rare; the explanation for use of the full name is to call attention to Obama's origins, to make the point that "he's not really one of us, he's foreign, he's different." Drawing attention to his race and origin, and never by his friends, only by his political enemies, only to deliver that one racist message, "This is not one of us."
Your problem is that as the underlying racism of the McCain campaign in particular and the Republican Party in general rears its ugly head in desperation, all other measures failing, it's messing up this nice whitewashed picture you like to paint for yourself of the U.S.A. as the repository of all the good and decency there is on this earth. It hurts you to see the racist cesspool that it really is. You can't face the reality. Make-believe is so much nicer.
-
Common courtesy says you don't refer to another person in the room as "that one," especially if you know his name. Please don't pretend this is news to you.
"Dubya"
-
This Barack HUSSEIN Obama stuff is, as you know, done to surreptitiously accuse Obama of being a Muslim.
Calling him "That one", is rude.
None of this is very important. McCain should be less rude. Your chief of police should just use two names. People didn't elect him to campaign for McCain.
If this does not happen, it will make very little difference.
What if McCain's middle name was Hitler? It is really much better than the sisssy name he does have:
http://supremecourtjester.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-if-john-mccains-middle-name-was.html (http://supremecourtjester.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-if-john-mccains-middle-name-was.html)
-
The use of the full name is rare; the explanation for use of the full name is to call attention to Obama's origins, to make the point that "he's not really one of us, he's foreign, he's different."
Methinks the name Barak Obama differentiates him from the Smiths and the Jones's.
I do agree throwing in his middle name is kind of silly.
-
Common courtesy says you don't refer to another person in the room as "that one," especially if you know his name. Please don't pretend this is news to you.
Similarly, the "I was only using his full name" bullshit. Are there TWO Barak Obama's? Does anyone else get called by their full names? McCain? Lieberman? Palin? The use of the full name is rare; the explanation for use of the full name is to call attention to Obama's origins, to make the point that "he's not really one of us, he's foreign, he's different." Drawing attention to his race and origin, and never by his friends, only by his political enemies, only to deliver that one racist message, "This is not one of us."
Your problem is that as the underlying racism of the McCain campaign in particular and the Republican Party in general rears its ugly head in desperation, all other measures failing, it's messing up this nice whitewashed picture you like to paint for yourself of the U.S.A. as the repository of all the good and decency there is on this earth. It hurts you to see the racist cesspool that it really is. You can't face the reality. Make-believe is so much nicer.
LOL, need more straw? So let's hang the bastard for bad manners. Racist? Me thinks that you get too over taken with your own head, Michael (since you chose to accuse me of being unable to face reality). I have a very good grasp on reality. The world is fucked up.... and why? Because we tend to be way to involved in not hurting anyone's feelings. The other day I wrote about the rich entertainers handing out fish.....I guess I should have mentioned motive. It is for adulation not charity.
-
Baraq [Barack] was the name of the winged horse-like creature that took Mohammed to Paradise in the Night Journey. Baraq can also mean God's blessing. Obama is Swahili for Osama, who was one of Mohammed's chief warriors. Osama also means lion. Hussein reminds some Americans of Saddam Hussein, and Obama's supporters get upset if it is used. Hussein was the name of Mohammed's grandson. So Obama's entire name is based upon Islamic mythology and African conquest. Barack Hussein Obama means [Allah's blessing] [Mohammed's grandson] [One of Mohammed's finest warriors].
My son's name is David Anthony, picked because it means God's chosen one and beyond belief.
Anyone pick names for their children because of meaning?
-
The use of the full name is rare; the explanation for use of the full name is to call attention to Obama's origins, to make the point that "he's not really one of us, he's foreign, he's different."
Methinks the name Barak Obama differentiates him from the Smiths and the Jones's.
I do agree throwing in his middle name is kind of silly.
I am surprised, if you listened to the Sheriff it was at a GOP rally and he was being emphatic and emotional. Typical rant and rave political rah rah.
-
What if McCain's middle name was Hitler? It is really much better than the sisssy name he does have:
http://supremecourtjester.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-if-john-mccains-middle-name-was.html (http://supremecourtjester.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-if-john-mccains-middle-name-was.html)
Sidney is not a sissy name. Strangely, in the US it has become, like Leslie and Beverly, a woman's name in the US.
St Denis (the no doubt bogus miraculous tale of his death) was just weird. I have seen a monument to him in Montmarte section of Paris. Actually, Montmarte (Martyr Mountain) is named after him: the Romans had th habit of executing criminals, saints, and such on this bluff overlooking the city. There is a large church there to commemorate the event.
The Romans got tired the day that they were supposed to behead St Denis, and they chopped off his head along the road. Outraged, he picked up his head and carried it up to the execution place while delivering a sermon, chasing the Romans before him.
Most people think Joan of Arc is the patron saint of France, but no, it is Saint Denis.
The British began to pronounce Saint-Denis as Sidney, and St John to "Sinjin", still spelled the usual way.
-
Normally posts and speeches with BaracK Hussein Obama also contain phrases like Islamofascist.
Not that there aren't any Islamofascists. i just don't think Obama is one of them.
I do think he is much further to the left than he wants people to believe, prior to the election.
-
I do think he is much further to the left than he wants people to believe, prior to the election.
How far to the left do you think he is?
-
How far to the left do you think he is?
Just this side of communist.
-
Ami: <<"Dubya">>
EXACTLY. Thank you for proving my point. There ARE two George Bushes. There are NOT two Barak Obamas. There is no reason at all for the middle name except to stoke racist sentiment against him.
Anyone who denies the huge reservoir of white racism in the former slave-owning U.S.A. is just closing their eyes to the ugly reality all around them. If Obama weren't black this wouldn't even be a contest. Once the economy tanked, McSame could have seen the writing on the wall and taken an extended golf tour, leaving all the campaigning to Conservative Barbie.
CNN did a feature story this morning on how the Steelworkers' Union in Pennsylvania is so worried about racist refusals to vote for a black man even in the union's own rank and file that they are sending out three-person teams to go door to door to persuade their members that voting for a black man would not be a heinous sin against the white race.
It's funny because I remember helping our elder daughter apartment-hunting in the suburbs of Philadelphia about 15 or 16 years ago, for her first job, and virtually everyone with a room to rent would eventually want to assure my wife and me that this was a "good area," or "good neighbourhood,"which it quickly turned out, upon asking for specifics, meant "No black people for miles around here." This wasn't just ONE house or ONE apartment building, it was EVERY house and EVERY apartment building. THAT is the reality of the U.S.A., what it's really like. Not the Norman Rockwell painting. And anyone who thinks otherwise has just got their head stuck in the sand.
-
>>Just this side of communist.<<
Emphisis on just.
All this whining about "that one" and using Barry's middle name is just the left doing it's best to divide and conquer America. It's like saying "you people." They don't like that either. I don't know, maybe they're just sensitive souls who didn't breast feed. Anyway, who cares what they think anyway? Call him whatever you like. Do it now, because Barry's truth squad is out there, and if he's elected they might just show up on your door in their little red uniforms and fez hats.
I suppose he can do whatever he likes, but isn't it tradition to swear in a president using his full name?
-
actually, I think that Americans have a propensity to use names in accordance of how they feel on the tongue.
Look how often we heard, Lynden Baines Johnson.... wonder how many of them there were.
or how about Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that is almost like singing a line in a song.
Add to that some often lose their names and become, FDR or JFK.
Me thinks that liberals make too much of all this in their zeal to make it a nation of one.
-
>>actually, I think that Americans have a propensity to use names in accordance of how they feel on the tongue.<<
I agree completely. I've said in the past that the name of the canditate means as much as his policies in some ways. Presidents usually have very WASPie names. Simple, as you said, they roll off the tongue. Nixon, Grant, Clinton, Bush, Garfiled, Johnson, Carter ...
Only democrats would nominate a guy named Barack Hussien Obama.
Peace cro.
-
How is calling presidents by initials or their names a liberal thing?
Obama is no no way even close to being a Socialist, let alone a Communist.
-
The use of the full name is rare; the explanation for use of the full name is to call attention to Obama's origins, to make the point that "he's not really one of us, he's foreign, he's different."
Methinks the name Barak Obama differentiates him from the Smiths and the Jones's.
I do agree throwing in his middle name is kind of silly.
Black's are more likely to be named Smith, Jones , Washington and Jefferson than Obama which might be Irish if you only heard it.
-
<<Look how often we heard, Lynden Baines Johnson.... wonder how many of them there were.>>
I just conducted an unscientific poll of my own by visiting the home page of the NY Post and doing a search for recent mentions of "President Johnson" (taking no steps to exclude Andrew Johnson, 17th Prez) and got six hits, one of which turned out to be Pres. Ellen Johnson of Liberia. Of the other five, one turned out to be a reference to a football player named Johnson and the other four were LBJ. Three of the remaining four named LBJ as either Lyndon Johnson or Lyndon B. Johnson, one only used all three names. The one that used the full middle name had a valid reason for so doing: It was about the love of initialling, how Mrs. J. ("Lady Bird") and the daughters were also LBJ's, etc. Conclusion: Absent a particular reason for giving a middle name, a middle name will not be used for the 36th President of the United States.
"Franklin Delano Roosevelt" has a certain sonorous ring to it, and I kind of suspect that those who used all three of his names were his friends, not his enemies. There is no conceivable reason for using Delano as a term of opprobrium.
One simple test of innocent intent is to count all the times the name "Hussein" is used when referring to Obama. How many times by enemies or opponents, how many times by supporters or friends. My bet will be that EVERY TIME the name "Hussein" is used, it will be by one of his enemies.
-
Anyone pick names for their children because of meaning?
I named our weiner dawg Bubba. Just means I like him. That count?
-
<<Anyone pick names for their children because of meaning?>>
Our first daughter, Jennifer. Most of the baby-naming books said it meant "white" and "lady" and associated it with names like Guinivere or Guenivere. "White lady" didn't do anything for either of us. However, ONE book said it meant "the crest of the wave." As soon as I saw "crest of the wave," I fell in love with the name. Also it was in two songs, "Jennifer Juniper" and "Jennifer Eccles" that were popular at the time and which my wife and I really liked.
-
Our Chinese Crested puppy has been named "Yoda". We like him
-
http://www.mycathatesyou.com/ (http://www.mycathatesyou.com/)
If you haven't seen this, it's hilarious.
-
<<Look how often we heard, Lynden Baines Johnson.... wonder how many of them there were.>>
I just conducted an unscientific poll of my own by visiting the home page of the NY Post and doing a search for recent mentions of "President Johnson" (taking no steps to exclude Andrew Johnson, 17th Prez) and got six hits, one of which turned out to be Pres. Ellen Johnson of Liberia. Of the other five, one turned out to be a reference to a football player named Johnson and the other four were LBJ. Three of the remaining four named LBJ as either Lyndon Johnson or Lyndon B. Johnson, one only used all three names. The one that used the full middle name had a valid reason for so doing: It was about the love of initialling, how Mrs. J. ("Lady Bird") and the daughters were also LBJ's, etc. Conclusion: Absent a particular reason for giving a middle name, a middle name will not be used for the 36th President of the United States.
"Franklin Delano Roosevelt" has a certain sonorous ring to it, and I kind of suspect that those who used all three of his names were his friends, not his enemies. There is no conceivable reason for using Delano as a term of opprobrium.
One simple test of innocent intent is to count all the times the name "Hussein" is used when referring to Obama. How many times by enemies or opponents, how many times by supporters or friends. My bet will be that EVERY TIME the name "Hussein" is used, it will be by one of his enemies.
Though I prefer the term "opponent" to "enemy", I suppose you are right. I really don't have any enemies (that I am aware of or would reciprocate the emotion) I am one to just 'leave' the area though not from fear but from the fact that the staying offers me nothing but negative energy. I suspect that Franklin's friends did use his three names. Whether Barack Hussein Obama uses his three names is up to him. I don't like him not because he is black, not because his roots are from the middle east, I don't like his platform, I don't like his body language and I don't like his wife (or her ticks). His kids seem pretty nice( for now).
-
Our Chinese Crested puppy has been named "Yoda". We like him
In response to you and Bear, it is said that those that name their pets the likes of scruffy, fluffy, bubba and yes even Yoda, still see them as "pets." It is those that name their pets, Ivan, Polly, Pete i.e. human names, think of them as equals.
I have run the gammout..... sonny, prince, Jan, Fred, Sweetie, Stitch, JR. Call me confused.
-
Ouch.
So pets, aren't pets?
-
Baraq [Barack] was the name of the winged horse-like creature that took Mohammed to Paradise in the Night Journey. Baraq can also mean God's blessing. Obama is Swahili for Osama, who was one of Mohammed's chief warriors. Osama also means lion. Hussein reminds some Americans of Saddam Hussein, and Obama's supporters get upset if it is used. Hussein was the name of Mohammed's grandson. So Obama's entire name is based upon Islamic mythology and African conquest. Barack Hussein Obama means [Allah's blessing] [Mohammed's grandson] [One of Mohammed's finest warriors].
My son's name is David Anthony, picked because it means God's chosen one and beyond belief.
Anyone pick names for their children because of meaning?
All three names are Arabic?
Dang .
From now on lets be polite and not use his Arabic name.
Lets call him the Politician Formerly Known As Barak Hussein Obama
or TPFKABHO for short.
-
I like the name bart savagewood.
berkely breathe for obvious reasons has a thing about names
-
Ouch.
So pets, aren't pets?
They are, but some folks try to make them equals. It usually leads to neurosis [in the pets].
-
How is calling presidents by initials or their names a liberal thing?
Obama is no no way even close to being a Socialist, let alone a Communist.
Hmmmm, how do you know that?
-
<<Hmmmm, how do you know that?>>
Easy. He does not advocate Canadian-style single-payer health care.
-
<<Hmmmm, how do you know that?>>
Easy. He does not advocate Canadian-style single-payer health care.
Mtee,
Do you advocate Communism for America?
-
Mtee,
Do you advocate Communism for America?
================================================================
No, it would never work and there would be a pointless bloodbath.
Things would have to get really desperate and hopeless before Communism would have anything positive to offer us. People need to understand, that despite the many ways that a Communist system is good for the people and particularly the working class, that there are a lot of sacrifices that we would have to make in order to accommodate Communism and also that Communism has that one central problem (Lord Acton's dictum) that has yet to be resolved.
Socialism, yes. Our system of "socialized medicine" is ten thousand times better than your system. I know that personally, from first-hand experience and from the experiences of many others. We still have some kinks in our health-care system but overall, a lot better. ("Ten thousand times" being obviously an exaggeration for effect)
-
Mtee,
Do you advocate Communism for America?
================================================================
No, it would never work and there would be a pointless bloodbath.
Things would have to get really desperate and hopeless before Communism would have anything positive to offer us. People need to understand, that despite the many ways that a Communist system is good for the people and particularly the working class, that there are a lot of sacrifices that we would have to make in order to accommodate Communism and also that Communism has that one central problem (Lord Acton's dictum) that has yet to be resolved.
Socialism, yes. Our system of "socialized medicine" is ten thousand times better than your system. I know that personally, from first-hand experience and from the experiences of many others. We still have some kinks in our health-care system but overall, a lot better. ("Ten thousand times" being obviously an exaggeration for effect)
I think that maybe we should consider all of the parts not just some of the parts.
Moscow is the #1 highest cost of living (2008) Toronto is #54 New York (which is barely American) Detroit is #127 with most of the working states in the 130's.
-
OK, I'm not opposed to a patchwork approach necessarily; if socialism produces superior health care, but capitalism produces superior food at cheaper prices, why not put the best system in where it's most effective?
-
Our system of "socialized medicine" is ten thousand times better than your system.
LOL....that's why so many come to America for healthcare and procedures, than to Canada...because Canada's is soooo much better
I needed a good laugh. NEWS Flash Tee, having every covered does NOT = Great Healthcare. I can't count the # of personal stories I have as a Healthcare provider from folks who were receiving "healthcare" from other countries, Canada & Great Britian especially, and able to compare it to the care they get here. Not even close. I know of 1 patient who wasn't going to be scehduled for abdominal surgery for months, and the pain was so great, she took some bread, poured some red food dye on it, called the paramedics, and when they got there, she told them that "this" is what she threw up. She was immediately taken in, and had the surgery she so desperately needed. That was in England. I had a patient who had a serious break of her femur, and was going to have to wait a minimum of 2 weeks, though was told it'd likely be more like a month, since it wasn't "emergent". Her family loaded her up in a car, and brought her into the U.S., where she had the necessary surgery the next day.
You can KEEP your prescious Canadien healthcare, thank you very much
-
sirs, first off, I respect the insight that you have as a worker in the health-care system and the first-hand insights you get from that.
I hope you understand that not only do I interact with the health-care system here many times in the course of my working week, but also that as a patient and the husband of a patient who between the two of us have had five surgeries, four under general anaesthetic. This includes two major (4 hours plus) surgeries. All of it free. All but the last unmarred by unnecessary and inexcusable delays.
<<I know of 1 patient who wasn't going to be scehduled for abdominal surgery for months, and the pain was so great, she took some bread, poured some red food dye on it, called the paramedics, and when they got there, she told them that "this" is what she threw up. She was immediately taken in, and had the surgery she so desperately needed. That was in England.>>
Nice. Probably getting in ahead of some cancer patient playing by the rules whose cancer went into the lymphatic system during the delay forced on her by the line-jumper. I wonder if your patient (a) took the time to work with her treating physician trying out various pain-management techniques; (b) took the trouble to get a second opinion as to the urgency of the situation or (c) decided to line-jump because she was too lazy to go the usual route of extra pain-management and second- or third-opinion consultations.
<<I had a patient who had a serious break of her femur, and was going to have to wait a minimum of 2 weeks, though was told it'd likely be more like a month, since it wasn't "emergent".>>
This one sounds very typical of most of the "long-wait" complaints I've encountered. A non-life-threatening, "non-emergent" situation, no apparent reason why the leg can't be comfortably splinted with good skin care and pain management until surgery. But the patient "can't wait" probably because she's better than all the other broken leg victims patiently waiting their turns. She's got the cash and so she'll buy her way to the head of the line.
There is no doubt that for spoiled, rich patients with a very healthy sense of entitlement, the U.S. system is the better one.
What you don't seem to get is that our system is not designed to provide the best treatment to the wealthiest fifth of the population. For these folks, our system is worse becuase they have to wait longer when not in life-threatening or "emergent" situations. Your system IS better at that.
OUR system is better because it gives everybody the same decent (but not the best, in terms of wait times) medical treatment, regardless of economic station in life. And I can tell you from personal experience that in life-threatening, emergency situations, the free service available equally to all Canadians, rich and poor, is second to none. It was fast, it was very effective. Within well under two minutes of walking into the ER, I was triaged, put in a wheelchair and had an IV line run into my arm with whatever medication was required to prevent further damage to the heart muscle. The nurses and doctors were fantastic.
I did not say our system was perfect. There are delays in non-emergent situations, but the coverage is universal and it is free. We are way, way, way ahead of you.
-
The Canadians who are happy with their system, which are most Canadians, do not come here. The same is true for Brits who come here.
The tales one hears from these discontented people are anecdotal and not typical.
If you ask the quarter million Americans who live in the UK what they like more about living there, they almost all will say "I like not having to take my checkbook to the doctor's".
People who travel abroad are rarely typical of the people who live in any country.
-
Our system of "socialized medicine" is ten thousand times better than your system.
LOL....that's why so many come to America for healthcare and procedures, than to Canada...because Canada's is soooo much better
I needed a good laugh. NEWS Flash Tee, having every covered does NOT = Great Healthcare. I can't count the # of personal stories I have as a Healthcare provider from folks who were receiving "healthcare" from other countries, Canada & Great Britian especially, and able to compare it to the care they get here. Not even close. I know of 1 patient who wasn't going to be scehduled for abdominal surgery for months, and the pain was so great, she took some bread, poured some red food dye on it, called the paramedics, and when they got there, she told them that "this" is what she threw up. She was immediately taken in, and had the surgery she so desperately needed. That was in England. I had a patient who had a serious break of her femur, and was going to have to wait a minimum of 2 weeks, though was told it'd likely be more like a month, since it wasn't "emergent". Her family loaded her up in a car, and brought her into the U.S., where she had the necessary surgery the next day.
You can KEEP your prescious Canadien healthcare, thank you very much
Good post, Sirs. I might give you a hard time and make you into a grumpy ole boy...but you do step up to the plate when it comes to what is right (most of the time).
;)
-
Mtee,
Do you advocate Communism for America?
================================================================
No, it would never work and there would be a pointless bloodbath.
Things would have to get really desperate and hopeless before Communism would have anything positive to offer us. People need to understand, that despite the many ways that a Communist system is good for the people and particularly the working class, that there are a lot of sacrifices that we would have to make in order to accommodate Communism and also that Communism has that one central problem (Lord Acton's dictum) that has yet to be resolved.
Socialism, yes. Our system of "socialized medicine" is ten thousand times better than your system. I know that personally, from first-hand experience and from the experiences of many others. We still have some kinks in our health-care system but overall, a lot better. ("Ten thousand times" being obviously an exaggeration for effect)
I believe it is a dangerous road down the hill of socialism.....blasting like an avalanche into communism. I don't care what folks say here. The possibility is too great for the opportunity. Violence comes too naturally when it comes to individuals who want desperately to have it "their way".
-
<<I believe it [socialism] is a dangerous road down the hill of socialism.....blasting like an avalanche into communism.>>
Problem is, history provides no examples of a communist society arising out of a socialist system. Although there are plenty of examples of a communist society arising out of a capitalist system.
-
<<I believe it [socialism] is a dangerous road down the hill of socialism.....blasting like an avalanche into communism.>>
Problem is, history provides no examples of a communist society arising out of a socialist system. Although there are plenty of examples of a communist society arising out of a capitalist system.
Wasn't that the theroy under which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicks operated?
-
<<Good post, Sirs. I might give you a hard time and make you into a grumpy ole boy...but you do step up to the plate when it comes to what is right (most of the time).>>
the only users of the Canadian health-care system that sirs will ever see in his practice are those who left Canada for various reasons before they were cured of their ailments by the medical profession. Since his professional patient contacts are limited to incurables and the not-yet-cured, there are bound to be a higher percentage of dissatisfied users and this is reflected in the statistically skewed sample that he sees. It's unfortunate that sirs will never have any professional contact with the millions of Canadians of all walks of life from the richest to the poorest, who have passed through the Canadian health-care system, been fixed up at absolutely no cost to themselves and thus have no need of sirs' professional services.
Since satisfied Canadian health-care consumers are filtered out of sirs' experience, it's no wonder that he encounters so much negativity regarding our system.
-
<<Good post, Sirs. I might give you a hard time and make you into a grumpy ole boy...but you do step up to the plate when it comes to what is right (most of the time).>>
the only users of the Canadian health-care system that sirs will ever see in his practice are those who left Canada for various reasons before they were cured of their ailments by the medical profession.
In other words, those who needed care, were without any other recourse, and with the excruciating pain not being managed, or the condition simply unbearable to wait for the government bureacracy to run its course, would come to America to get the needed treatment/surgery/CARE they they were not able to get elsewhere
But hey, at least they were covered, right?? That's what's important. That, and that someone else pay for it
-
<<Wasn't that the theroy under which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicks operated?>>
No, the reverse. That communism was a necessary condition for the emergence of a truly socialist society at which point the state would "wither away" since it would no longer be necessary.
The Communist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat is a necessary class war instrument of the working class, but with the triumph of the Revolution, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, true socialism will be realized and the classes will dissolve. The Class War will finally disappear. The state, originally conceived as the Class War vehicle for the ruling class to maintain its control over the proletariat, will no longer be necessary for any purpose, and will therefore "wither away."
-
<<In other words, those who needed care, were without any other recourse, and with the excruciating pain not being managed, or the condition simply unbearable to wait for the government bureacracy to run its course, would come to America to get the needed treatment/surgery/CARE they they were not able to get elsewhere>>
Well, assuming these are people who have exhausted every reasonable alternative under the Canadian system, yes. These would be the failures of the system. Every system has its failures, and you are seeing some of the failures (and none of the successes) of ours.
<<But hey, at least they were covered, right?? That's what's important.>>
Yes, when you rate the overall effectiveness of the systems, the number of people covered is a legitimate, and even important, element to be taken into account. It's important that every citizen be covered, which means, entitled as of right to decent medical treatment. At least that's how we see it, according to our values. And it would be important to know, in assessing any system of coverage, to know that the current system was leaving 47 million citizens without any coverage at all.
<< That, and that someone else pay for it>>
I pay for it, sirs. My wife pays for it. Every fucking dollar of tax I ever paid to the Minister of National Revenue had some part of it invested in health care.
-
News flash Tee, when you're in pain....debilitating, excruciating, dysfunctional pain, you're not looking to exhaust every other lesser tx approach, dragged out insidiously behind the bureacrcy that will decide when that next treatment is going to take place. If the Docotor knows, and it can be taken care of, that's it. This isn't some foreign diplomacy approach, where you exhaust every conceivable lesser option. This is also not an advocation that surgery should be the 1st and formost choice. Only that CHOICE is the key, and in your system, that key is WAY down in the priority box. So, for every one of your anecdotal examples to validate Canadien healthcare, I have an equal, if not far more set of examples, that trump yours
And by all means......pay for it yourself
-
The Class War will finally disappear. The state, originally conceived as the Class War vehicle for the ruling class to maintain its control over the proletariat, will no longer be necessary for any purpose, and will therefore "wither away."
===============================================
That is the theory, but what tends to happen is that those in power, even though they may have been party stalwarts, never like to relinquish power, and tend to want to pass it on to their heirs. Note what has happened in North Korea.
If the USSR had been run according to this theory, it would not have dissolved. The Chinese are among the most successful Communist countries in the world, but this seems to be due to the uniformity of the population, mostly Han Chinese, and the collectivist nature of Chinese society. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were utter disasters, but the leadership introducing capitalism to sell manufactured goods at bargain rates to the West seems to have been the most successful in the world. The Communist governmnt of China has been better at capitalism than any capitalist or sort of capitalist nation.
I think I would vastly prefer to be a Dane in semi-Socialist Denmark than to be Chinese in the PRC or a Cuban in Cuba. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a Korean in North Korea.
==================================
Sirs thinks his unmentioned anecdotes about the Canadian health care "trump" anything that Tee can present, but this is just in his mind aqnd should not be taken seriously, even by him.
-
<<News flash Tee, when you're in pain....debilitating, excruciating, dysfunctional pain, you're not looking to exhaust every other lesser tx approach, dragged out insidiously behind the bureacrcy that will decide when that next treatment is going to take place. >>
News flash for sirs and all the wimps of America - - we don't need a lecture from sirs or anyone else to know that pain is bad. If that woman really were in "debilitating, excruciating pain" without any alternative remedy, she would have been operated on. I don't believe a consult or a second opinion on either or both pain management or a reconsideration of the urgency of the case for surgery imposes any undue hardship on the woman and could probably be accomplished in equal or less time than her trip to the States for surgery.
I think, and if you are honest, you will admit, that you were dealing with a highly self-indulgent, me-first type of patient who has the typical personality of a queue-jumper and as long as she has the money in her pocket fits in well with the instant-gratification culture of greed and selfishness that is the United States of America. In all probability, her pain was manageable pending the operation; if not, there was simply medical incompetence in not recognizing the intractable nature and the severity of the pain and the need for fast-tracking whatever had to be done.
Canada does not hold the monopoly on medical incompetence. Here as in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, there is, unfortunately, the occasional bad doctor. We are not about to sacrifice the basic benefit of free health care for each and every citizen regardless of the thickness of his or her wallet, either because one or two wimps can't put up with the inconvenience of getting second opinions or reconsulting their doctors on pain management or because some unfortunate patients encounter poor doctoring from one or two guys who slipped past their medical schools' filters. The latter circumstances, unfortunately, can occur anywhere and in any system. Human error is a universal constant.
<<If the Docotor knows, and it can be taken care of, that's it. This isn't some foreign diplomacy approach, where you exhaust every conceivable lesser option. >>
Neither is it a "one shot" deer hunt. Every system, capitalist or communist, has to allow for doctor error in diagnosis and treatment. I doubt, even in a capitalist system, that an HMO is going to pay for fast-track surgery merely due to unmanageable pain, when the patient's own primary care-giver has not ordered fast-track surgery and when alternative means of pain-control have not been looked into. This woman got the surgery on HER terms at HER time only because she was wealthy enough to pay for it herself, by-passing not only the English or Canadian system but the HMO system that most Americans have to satisfy.
<<This is also not an advocation that surgery should be the 1st and formost choice. Only that CHOICE is the key, and in your system, that key is WAY down in the priority box. >>
There was a trade-off. If the rich could buy their choice of treatment, the non-rich (all the rest of us) would not have the high standard of free medical care we now enjoy. The system that caters to the rich would absorb a significant portion of our health-care resources. This was apparent not only from the exhaustive analyses of the Romanow Report but also in actual Ontario experience when our last Conservative government permitted the operation of private, for-profit MRI clinics, allegedly to take the strain off the public system and reduce overall wait times. Although the operators of the clinics had promised not to hire away technicians from the existing public sector, in actual fact, every single technician in every single private MRI clinic was hired away from the public sector.
I agree with you completely. Instant gratification and instant satisfaction are preferable to long waiting periods. But can we afford that and STILL offer free health care to every citizen? The answer is NO. So a choice has to be made, and we made ours in favour of all our citizens. You made yours in favour of the rich.
<<So, for every one of your anecdotal examples to validate Canadien healthcare, I have an equal, if not far more set of examples, that trump yours>>
You may have an equal set but they don't trump mine. All they prove is either that doctors make mistakes or that people with money can jump to the head of the line.
-
Michael,
I have to disagree with you in regards to socialized medicine. My aunt had cataracts and she could only get one eye done at a time. Nothing to do with the medical procedure - everything to do with scheduling and 'turns.'
When I was a kid, I got to go and have a tooth pulled on socialized medicine. I came out sans 14 of them.
-
<<I have to disagree with you in regards to socialized medicine. My aunt had cataracts and she could only get one eye done at a time. Nothing to do with the medical procedure - everything to do with scheduling and 'turns.'>>
Well, once again, cro, we come up with some inconvenience to your aunt. Sure it's bothersome to come back for a repeat if both could be done at once. Suppose you're in a queue with 2,000 bilateral cataract cases ahead of you. If you're no. 2,000 in the queue and the doctors do only 4 cases a day, 2 eyes at a time, you'll wait 500 days blind in both eyes till your turn comes up to be cured. If they do it one eye at a time, say the doctors do 8 cases a day, one eye per patient, and in only 250 days, you'll at least have your sight in one eye.
If the system had to pay for more eye doctors and operating rooms and equipment so that 200 cases, 2 eyes per patient, could whip through the system, there would be no funding for other treatments or perhaps no coverage for some patients.
The system is not perfect. It's a compromise. Your aunt's waiting time was not ideal, but she put up with the inconvenience so that a system which covered the entire population without user fees would be viable. With your aunt, you saw one facet of the National Health. Somewhere someone else got treatment that wouldn't otherwise have been available to her, had your aunt been provided with two-eye visits and shorter wait periods. Think of a system whose primary objective is universal access to good quality health care, not instant gratification of every medical need.
When our kids were small, we had a succession of French Canadian au pairs stay with us to look after the kids in exchange for room and board and the chance to learn or practice their English. These girls, some of them very attractive, were usually the product of big Catholic families and most of them had had all their teeth already pulled in their early teens to spare the families the cost of dentistry. It was a shock to us, sure it was sad but we understood the logic behind it. I don't know if National Health had a policy to yank every kid's teeth to avoid future costs of dentistry, I don't know if your family had to consent, or even whether you just had extraordinarily bad teeth, so I can't really comment on your story. I assume it was a National Health dentist who removed your teeth, otherwise there would be no point in telling the story. In Canada, dental is not covered by our universal health care plan (but it should be.)
-
<<I have to disagree with you in regards to socialized medicine. My aunt had cataracts and she could only get one eye done at a time. Nothing to do with the medical procedure - everything to do with scheduling and 'turns.'>>
Well, once again, cro, we come up with some inconvenience to your aunt. Sure it's bothersome to come back for a repeat if both could be done at once. Suppose you're in a queue with 2,000 bilateral cataract cases ahead of you. If you're no. 2,000 in the queue and the doctors do only 4 cases a day, 2 eyes at a time, you'll wait 500 days blind in both eyes till your turn comes up to be cured. If they do it one eye at a time, say the doctors do 8 cases a day, one eye per patient, and in only 250 days, you'll at least have your sight in one eye.
If the system had to pay for more eye doctors and operating rooms and equipment so that 200 cases, 2 eyes per patient, could whip through the system, there would be no funding for other treatments or perhaps no coverage for some patients.
The system is not perfect. It's a compromise. Your aunt's waiting time was not ideal, but she put up with the inconvenience so that a system which covered the entire population without user fees would be viable. With your aunt, you saw one facet of the National Health. Somewhere someone else got treatment that wouldn't otherwise have been available to her, had your aunt been provided with two-eye visits and shorter wait periods. Think of a system whose primary objective is universal access to good quality health care, not instant gratification of every medical need.
When our kids were small, we had a succession of French Canadian au pairs stay with us to look after the kids in exchange for room and board and the chance to learn or practice their English. These girls, some of them very attractive, were usually the product of big Catholic families and most of them had had all their teeth already pulled in their early teens to spare the families the cost of dentistry. It was a shock to us, sure it was sad but we understood the logic behind it. I don't know if National Health had a policy to yank every kid's teeth to avoid future costs of dentistry, I don't know if your family had to consent, or even whether you just had extraordinarily bad teeth, so I can't really comment on your story. I assume it was a National Health dentist who removed your teeth, otherwise there would be no point in telling the story. In Canada, dental is not covered by our universal health care plan (but it should be.)
Michael, I am NOT foisting my Aunt up without reason. Your argument is like a poor quality diamond unable to withstand many cuts because it will never shine. I base my argument on several things.
1. Cataract surgery takes 15 minutes per eye though the time in the hospital is 4 to 5 hours. 2000 times 4 hours is 8000 hours. Allowing that the person that is going to occupy 4 hours of hospital time the hours for one eye actually would be 8000 hours but those same 2000 people will be back for another 8000 hours. Even if you gave the time an extra hour (generous by two) it would only take 10,000 hours versus 16,000 hours.
2. When we go into the hospital for surgery we subject ourselves to problems with anesthesia, staph infections or incompetence.
3. The clean up crew will have 37.5% percent more work doing one eye at a time.
4. An O.R. is booked for surgery and it has to be scrubbed and sterile for each patient. The doctors and nurses have to be scrubbed and sterile. Even if it only takes 1 hour for that .... 2 eyes takes 2 hours - 1 eye takes an hour and one half. If you figure an O.R. is used for 10 hours per day you can do 5 double eyed surgeries or 6 and 2/3 one eyed surgery were they will be back again .
5. recovery time and inconvenience is doubled.
I don't know.... I think I have made my point here.
I didn't have bad teeth.... I had a butcher.
-
Look, cro, I wasn't trying to give you any precise estimation of cataract surgery times, I was trying to illustrate a principle with concrete numbers. If you adjust my numbers to the actual instead of the hypothetical, you will still have an illustration of the principle that I was attempting to articulate.
The point is that if you do one eye at a time, the guys at the end of the queue will have a shorter wait for partial vision to be restored to them, and if you don't, then the guys at the end of the queue will wait longer for just partial vision.
The extra time of the cleaning staff is a total red herring. Presumably the system operates for the convenience of the patients, not the cleaning staff. Somebody has totted up the extra costs in cleaners' wages against the wait time of the patients and found a fair balance.
<<When we go into the hospital for surgery we subject ourselves to problems with anesthesia, staph infections or incompetence.>>
Valid point as far as it goes, but the actual rates of infection, anaesthetic problems, human error are probably a lot closer to 1% than they are to 100%, so again it's a slight risk balanced against a perceived gain in wait time for all the patients. Not a perfect system, but again the best you can get for the money you have to spend on it. Some inconvenience as you described exactly, but that buys universal coverage. That's the price of universal coverage. That's what you have to put up with to be able to afford universal coverage. Without universal coverage, the horror stories among those without any means of providing for decent health care would dwarf anything you and your aunt have come up with.
<<An O.R. is booked for surgery and it has to be scrubbed and sterile for each patient. The doctors and nurses have to be scrubbed and sterile. Even if it only takes 1 hour for that .... 2 eyes takes 2 hours - 1 eye takes an hour and one half. If you figure an O.R. is used for 10 hours per day you can do 5 double eyed surgeries or 6 and 2/3 one eyed surgery were they will be back again.>>
Again, seems like a valid point to me, certainly one that I had not foreseen. It's too late for me to get involved in the math, I did a graphic representation of the problem and it looks to me like 3 patients a day if both eyes are done and four patients a day if only one eye is done. So when you're dealing with thousands of patients, there is probably a significant reduction in wait time by doing one eye at a time. Whether it's worth the negative consequences you've described so well would depend on data we don't have - - the number of extra infections and complications etc. I expect that in Britain, the boffins wouldn't just blindly pick policies out of a hat, they must have done some kind of study that justifies the course they took. The English I've met are very fair people and they must have tried to be fair to everyone, your aunt included, and this system probably represents the best they can do for all users of the system, within the limits of the funding they have.
-
Look, cro, I wasn't trying to give you any precise estimation of cataract surgery times, I was trying to illustrate a principle with concrete numbers. If you adjust my numbers to the actual instead of the hypothetical, you will still have an illustration of the principle that I was attempting to articulate.
The point is that if you do one eye at a time, the guys at the end of the queue will have a shorter wait for partial vision to be restored to them, and if you don't, then the guys at the end of the queue will wait longer for just partial vision.
The extra time of the cleaning staff is a total red herring. Presumably the system operates for the convenience of the patients, not the cleaning staff. Somebody has totted up the extra costs in cleaners' wages against the wait time of the patients and found a fair balance.
<<When we go into the hospital for surgery we subject ourselves to problems with anesthesia, staph infections or incompetence.>>
Valid point as far as it goes, but the actual rates of infection, anaesthetic problems, human error are probably a lot closer to 1% than they are to 100%, so again it's a slight risk balanced against a perceived gain in wait time for all the patients. Not a perfect system, but again the best you can get for the money you have to spend on it. Some inconvenience as you described exactly, but that buys universal coverage. That's the price of universal coverage. That's what you have to put up with to be able to afford universal coverage. Without universal coverage, the horror stories among those without any means of providing for decent health care would dwarf anything you and your aunt have come up with.
<<An O.R. is booked for surgery and it has to be scrubbed and sterile for each patient. The doctors and nurses have to be scrubbed and sterile. Even if it only takes 1 hour for that .... 2 eyes takes 2 hours - 1 eye takes an hour and one half. If you figure an O.R. is used for 10 hours per day you can do 5 double eyed surgeries or 6 and 2/3 one eyed surgery were they will be back again.>>
Again, seems like a valid point to me, certainly one that I had not foreseen. It's too late for me to get involved in the math, I did a graphic representation of the problem and it looks to me like 3 patients a day if both eyes are done and four patients a day if only one eye is done. So when you're dealing with thousands of patients, there is probably a significant reduction in wait time by doing one eye at a time. Whether it's worth the negative consequences you've described so well would depend on data we don't have - - the number of extra infections and complications etc. I expect that in Britain, the boffins wouldn't just blindly pick policies out of a hat, they must have done some kind of study that justifies the course they took. The English I've met are very fair people and they must have tried to be fair to everyone, your aunt included, and this system probably represents the best they can do for all users of the system, within the limits of the funding they have.
o 0 O tries this again...... (posted a reply but not chat worthy and lost it)
Ok….. my point is missed.
Criteria of free healthcare – availability and cost (let’s not pretend that we are really not paying for said healthcare through our tax dollars)
2000 - 1 eye patrons @ 8 per day = 250 days.
2000 – 2 eyed patrons @ 6 2/3 per day = 300 days
even if you figure double surgeon costs, the price of the anesthesia and room would be minimal for the second eye.
Doing one eye versus two is an exorbitant waste of money and the person with 2000 people in front on of him (if they are all two eyed surgeries) is only stall 50 days…. Not 500.
-
I don't know the reasoning and I don't know all the numbers, but I would assume that the boffins at National Health do. So when you tell me yourself that the official reason for the "One Eye One Visit" policy is <<Nothing to do with the medical procedure - everything to do with scheduling and 'turns.'>> I have to give it sense in the only way I can figure out - - that the guy at the end of the line waits in total darkness for the longest period in a "Two Eyes One Visit" system and gets at least partial vision faster in a "One Eye One Visit" system.
We're playing with figures that are only rough approximations trying to come up with end-result figures that mean something but in fact the end-result figures we get are useless.
The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that the closer you are to the end of the line, the longer you wait in total darkness under "Two Eyes One Visit" and the shorter you wait in total darkness under "One Eye One Visit." Gotta be.
How much time one is spared from waiting in total darkness, we don't know. Days? Weeks? Obviously it depends on data we don't have, including total caseload, total physician hours available for servicing the caseload, etc. It would not be a simple calculation and it is beyond our abilities at present.
My point is, the system you complain of is not as capricious or arbitrary or silly as you seem to think it is. There are clearly reasons for it, and there may also be reasons against it. We just aren't in a position to know.
And there's a larger point as well - - even were the policy you complain of clearly inefficient, oppressive and stupid, it's one factor to consider, along with all the other rules, regulations and practices that may be equally offensive. BUT all of that, the sum total of NH's inconveniences, has to be balanced against the immense benefit of universal accessibility regardless of means for all citizens. That is a phenomenal benefit. Everyone is covered.
As annoyed as you and your aunt may be over the inconveniences of the National Health, wouldn't it be infinitely worse for your aunt to be out of money and in need of services which would have been provided by the National Health, when the National Health is no longer there for her?
-
I don't know the reasoning and I don't know all the numbers, but I would assume that the boffins at National Health do. So when you tell me yourself that the official reason for the "One Eye One Visit" policy is <<Nothing to do with the medical procedure - everything to do with scheduling and 'turns.'>> I have to give it sense in the only way I can figure out - - that the guy at the end of the line waits in total darkness for the longest period in a "Two Eyes One Visit" system and gets at least partial vision faster in a "One Eye One Visit" system.
We're playing with figures that are only rough approximations trying to come up with end-result figures that mean something but in fact the end-result figures we get are useless.
The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that the closer you are to the end of the line, the longer you wait in total darkness under "Two Eyes One Visit" and the shorter you wait in total darkness under "One Eye One Visit." Gotta be.
How much time one is spared from waiting in total darkness, we don't know. Days? Weeks? Obviously it depends on data we don't have, including total caseload, total physician hours available for servicing the caseload, etc. It would not be a simple calculation and it is beyond our abilities at present.
My point is, the system you complain of is not as capricious or arbitrary or silly as you seem to think it is. There are clearly reasons for it, and there may also be reasons against it. We just aren't in a position to know.
And there's a larger point as well - - even were the policy you complain of clearly inefficient, oppressive and stupid, it's one factor to consider, along with all the other rules, regulations and practices that may be equally offensive. BUT all of that, the sum total of NH's inconveniences, has to be balanced against the immense benefit of universal accessibility regardless of means for all citizens. That is a phenomenal benefit. Everyone is covered.
As annoyed as you and your aunt may be over the inconveniences of the National Health, wouldn't it be infinitely worse for your aunt to be out of money and in need of services which would have been provided by the National Health, when the National Health is no longer there for her?
I am not annoyed and my Aunt only told us that she was having one eye done and then the other in ten months. You keep trying make this a personal dislike it is not. It is simply that I don't think that government health is a good thing period. Regarding the numbers those were your numbers that you put up and you claimed 500 and I am telling you that based on the surgery is 50. Wasting money is never a good thing no matter whose money it is. The surgery takes 30 minutes and the prep time is between 3 1/2 and 4 1/2 hours.
I think that in this instance we have found our complete opposite foundations and why I will never be a liberal.
-
<<Regarding the numbers those were your numbers that you put up and you claimed 500 and I am telling you that based on the surgery is 50. Wasting money is never a good thing no matter whose money it is. The surgery takes 30 minutes and the prep time is between 3 1/2 and 4 1/2 hours.>>
Did you not understand those were hypothetical numbers meant only to illustrate a point? That I could have picked any other set of numbers and still illustrated the same point with them?
The point was that the guys at the end of the line get partial vision restored earlier with a one-eye visit than a two-eye visit. And that point is established no matter WHAT number I use for the time of a single operation as long as it's recognized that two eyes take longer than one.
Similarly whether you are annoyed at the system is not the point - - you obviously had some criticism to make, and the issue is the validity of the criticism, not whether or not you were annoyed at the system.
<<Wasting money is never a good thing no matter whose money it is.>>
The extra costs incurred were incurred in the interests of fairness, to shorten the waiting period for the guys at the end of the line, who could enjoy at least partial vision earlier than if both eyes were done at once. Money spent on fairness is not wasted - - just ask the guy at the end of the line about that.
-
I don't think this is about liberalism or conservatism.
Different people react to laser surgery in different ways. If this person's eyes were to react in an extremely negative way, she could be left blind by two-eye surgery. No treatment is or ever will be 100% effective, and a good doctor allows for the odd contingency. In any event, in Canada, she got the work done eventually, and it was affordable. In the US it is unaffordable for many, many people.
There may be reasons for not being a "liberal", but I fail to see how the results here would be one of them.
-
That is an excellent point. One eye at a time in case the procedure is not tolerated well by the patient. That in itself justifies the wait.
-
one last post on this....
HA HA HA.... of course I understand hypothetical....
"A hypothesis (from Greek ????????) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon (an event that is observable) or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will answer the problem the best.
Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive method (also known as the method of "conjectures and refutations") demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be "confirmed", because there is always the possibility that a future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action, i.e., we can act as if it is true, until such time as it is falsified. Just because we've never observed rain falling upward, doesn't mean that we never will--however improbable, our theory of gravity may be falsified some day.
Popper's view is not the only view on evaluating hypotheses. For example, some forms of empiricism hold that under a well-crafted, well-controlled experiment, a lack of falsification does count as verification, since such an experiment ranges over the full scope of possibilities in the problem domain. Should we ever discover some place where gravity did not function, and rain fell upward, this would not falsify our current theory of gravity (which, on this view, has been verified by innumerable well-formed experiments in the past)--it would rather suggest an expansion of our theory to encompass some new force or previously undiscovered interaction of forces. In other words, our theory as it stands is verified, though possibly incomplete."
I think that during our discussion here, I have managed to falsify your hypothesis.
Oh, and here is another HA HA HA for X throwing you a bale of straw to try and prop up your hypothesis.
Cro
-
First of all I am not familiar with Popper's philosophy and don't intend to debate the matter in Popper's terminology. There's absolutely no reason why this discussion can't be pursued in plain and simple English, giving words their accepted dictionary meaning, rather than Karl Popper's.
From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition:
hypothetical: 1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical
reasoning.
3. . . .
hypothesis: 2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument
3. , , ,
My hypotheses were the length of time to do one eye, the length of time it took to do two eyes, the number of hours per day the operating rooms were open and the length of the queue at any given time. The numbers assigned to each of those variables was hypothetical.
I wasn't following all of your Popper reasoning, but it seemed to me that at one point you made a fundamental error in identifying my hypothesis as the proposition that National Health cataract scheduling is rational, equitable and/or efficient use of resources. If not an error, then at the very least a fundamental failure of communication and a misreading of the meaning behind my use of "hypothetical."
Another reason why your figures are useless is that neither one of us knows the essential figure necessary to quantify the wait-shortening factor in real time, which is: the average length of the queue at any one point in time. I was not using my hypothetical figures to produce any real-world estimate of the wait-shortening factor, since I realized the absence of one of the essential factors, queue length, from the equation; my example was meant to show that in any circumstances, as long as it takes longer to do two eyes than one, there will always be a longer wait for the guy at the end of the queue to be reached. I speculated that the shortening of the wait factor, using real-life figures, would probably be significant enough to justify the "one-eye" policy.
What my model completely overlooked was the scrubbing time between patients, which you were kind enough to introduce. Of course, if that time is long enough to eradicate any time saved by not doing the second eye with the first, then the time advantage of the one-eye routine is wiped out. So depending on scrubbing or clean-up time, there may be no time saved in the queue. However this seems at variance with the reasoning advanced at NH in your own words, "turns" or "scheduling," which I assume related to the factors we have been discussing. Maybe they don't clean every operating room after every patient, maybe they have pairs of rooms, an A and a B room, and while the surgeon is operating in A, his staff are cleaning up B for the next guy, and while he's next operating in B the staff are cleaning up A.
In any event, all of this speculation is now moot. XO has given us an excellent reason for NOT doing both eyes at once, having nothing to do with "turns" and "scheduling."
-
Ok.... so you don't know the basis of most hypothesis. BUT I did tell you the proceedure (itself) took about 30 minutes and that the average time it would take in prep through recovery was 4 to 5 hours.
I hardly think one person having a bad reaction is reason enough to write it all off. Trust me, IF you wanted to only have one eye done you could.
But hey, I get it.... bad American.... yehhhhh socialist, communists and dictators.
-
<<But hey, I get it.... bad American.... yehhhhh socialist, communists and dictators.>>
Well, really - - do you honestly think that YOUR system, which spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth, but still leaves 47 million Americans out of 300 million uninsured, is BETTER than the Canadian system which provides good-quality medical care to every single citizen, regardless of ability to pay?
I really don't see how any sane, rational individual can claim the American system works better. I don't think "communists and dictators" enter into the issue at all, either. That was just a cheap shot. The issue is socialized medicine versus for-profit medicine. Far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer.
-
A) At best, it's mediocre-quality healthcare that everyone gets
B) Patient's choices are low priority
C) EVERYONE pays for it
It's better because choice is still a high priority in our system, and bureacratic red tape is far less a problem
-
<<But hey, I get it.... bad American.... yehhhhh socialist, communists and dictators.>>
Well, really - - do you honestly think that YOUR system, which spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth, but still leaves 47 million Americans out of 300 million uninsured, is BETTER than the Canadian system which provides good-quality medical care to every single citizen, regardless of ability to pay?
I really don't see how any sane, rational individual can claim the American system works better. I don't think "communists and dictators" enter into the issue at all, either. That was just a cheap shot. The issue is socialized medicine versus for-profit medicine. Far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer.
There you go accusing me of cheap shots and being insane. Ok here is an article by Canadians that presents my point of view. Just don't think that you have proven your one eye arguement based on your faulty hypothesis.
"INDEPTH: HEALTH CARE
Introduction
CBC News Online | August 22, 2006
One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.
On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.
The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005.
In the provincial government's response in February 2006, Premier Jean Cherest said the private sector could play a role in health care in Quebec, but said he remained committed to public health care. He also said Quebec will introduce guaranteed wait times for procedures including some radiation treatments and cardiac surgery, as well as knee and hip replacements and cataract operations.
The ruling has impact only on Quebec, but it could eventually lead to some of the biggest changes since former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas was credited with fathering medicare. Most Canadians take government-funded health care for granted today, but when it was first introduced in Saskatchewan in 1962, most of the province's doctors responded by going on strike to protest against "creeping socialism."
The strike lasted three weeks - public support for the doctors had collapsed, persuading the doctors to accept a deal with the government. Within five years, government-funded health care spread across the country.
While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.
A long wait for hip replacement surgery was what prompted the Quebec case that wound up before the Supreme Court.
George Zeliotis argued his yearlong wait for surgery was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on the charter's guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security. The second plaintiff, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, wanted the court to overturn a Quebec provision preventing doctors who don't operate within the medicare plan from charging for services in public hospitals.
Once upon a time, there were few complaints about lengthy waits for treatment. It was a time when the federal government provided about a third of the money the provinces spent on health care.
But as government belts tightened to deal with record budget deficits in the early 1990s, complaints about access to health care increased. The federal government drastically cut the amount of money it transferred to the provinces to cover health-care costs.
By the time another former Saskatchewan premier - Roy Romanow - released his landmark report on fixing medicare in 2002, Ottawa had slashed its share to about 16 per cent of the total. Romanow recommended an immediate infusion of federal dollars, to bring Ottawa's share up to 25 per cent.
With Romanow's landmark report under their belts, the nation's first ministers gathered in Ottawa in February 2003 for a meeting that was described as the most important session on health care since Canada adopted medicare. The prime minister, premiers and territorial leaders got together to try to turn some of Romanow's recommendations into action.
In the end, they agreed on several improvements:
* $16-billion, five-year Health Reform Fund for primary care, home care and catastrophic drug coverage
* $13.5 billion in new federal funding to the provinces over three years
* $2.5 billion cash infusion for 2003
* $600 million for information technology
* $500 million for research
The premiers said they were signing on reluctantly and that much of the money had already been promised. In the end, they said, they were getting about half of what Romanow recommended. The territorial leaders, on the other hand, didn't even sign the agreement. They argued that Ottawa was being inflexible - the north would be receiving the same amount of money per capita as the rest of the country, despite the much higher costs of delivering health care in Canada's most remote regions.
To a large degree, the 2004 federal election turned into a debate about the future of health care in Canada. The Liberals accused the newly united Conservatives of plotting to turn medicare into a two-tiered system where those who could afford to pay more would be able to buy speedier access to the system.
In 2004, the federal government and the premiers agreed to a $41-billion infusion into the system over 10 years.
Among the key parts of the agreement:
* Ensuring stable, predictable long-term funding.
* Implementing a National Waiting Times Reduction.
* Creating a National Home Care Program.
* Developing a national strategy for prescription drug care.
* Respecting the Canada Health Act.
Less than two months after the election, Prime Minister Martin convened a first ministers conference on health care. It was to last three days. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein stuck around for only the first day.
In the end, the conference lasted longer than planned, with most of the work done behind closed doors. There was a deal that provided for a $41-billion infusion into the system over 10 years.
Among the key parts of the agreement:
* $3.5 billion over two years in additional transfers to the provinces and territories.
* An "escalator clause" that automatically boosts transfers by six per cent a year to keep up with rising health costs.
* $4.5 billion over six years for a special fund to reduce waiting times for treatment.
In addition, a National Wait Times Strategy was developed for five priority areas: cancer care, cardiac treatment, diagnostic tests such as MRIs, joint replacements and cataract surgeries.
There may have been smiles and handshakes around the table, but the deal may not have been enough to persuade the Supreme Court that the health-care system was off the critical list.
In response in 2006, the federal government said it was moving toward what it called "patient wait-time guarantees" by 2008.
If maximum acceptable wait times aren't met, patients would have "recourse," or another way of getting that medical care, such as going to another facility or province, federal Health Minister Tony Clement told the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting in Charlottetown.
Funds for the recourse could come from the remaining $1 billion not yet allocated from the $5.5 billion pledged for reducing wait times in 2004, the CMA proposed."
-
All I can say about Canadian healthcare is that it is up to the Canadians. If were given the option of having it here, I imagine I would vote for it.
Canada being a democracy, I don't see why a majority of Canadians should not have the right to vote to have this insurance or not.
Crocat's aunt has the option of coming to the US or any other place for lasik surgery if she so desires.
I think that the doctor was looking after the patient's best interest by operating on one eye at a time. In this way no possibility of total blindness, which is a very serious thing, exists.
-
Crocat's aunt has the option of coming to the US or any other place for lasik surgery if she so desires.
Well, that's what the lawsuit was about; Quebec was trying to prevent people from doing exactly that.
-
The lawsuit was a 5-4 split, BTW.
In principle, I don't disagree with it. The system needs more funding, which means more taxes. I don't mind paying more taxes for health care, either.
For eight years of Conservative misrule in Ontario, there was a deliberate attempt to ruin the system by underfunding, to create unacceptable wait times, to close local and regional hospitals in the name of "efficiency" so that patients would have to travel longer times to fewer hospitals, and to fire nurses, again, to increase wait times. The policies of the Conservative government were directly responsible for the spread of the SARS epidemic in Toronto. Finally, after eight years of this shit, the people of Ontario threw the bums out in a landslide and we have been trying to bring OHIP, the Provincial system, back to normal functioning.
If a society is not willing to FUND a public health care system, then of course it will suck. You only get what you pay for. There is no free lunch.
I'm very happy with the way our system functions. It has served me and my wife well through two life-threatening illnesses, although there were problems in waiting for surgery the last time my wife needed an operation which I am still upset about. It was simply too long a wait period. Nothing wrong with "socialized medicine" but a problem I would blame on inadequate funding. Nothing that an appropriate tax raise wouldn't fix. In a for-pay medical system, my wife would have had the operation faster but the price would be millions of people unable to pay for decent medical care and some dying because of it. That's unacceptable. Health care is a right of the people, not a privilege that is bought and sold.
sirs raised the issue of choice. In every state of the Union, there are lawsuits ongoing between patients and HMOs who refused treatement or drugs that the patient "chose." The patient is NOT free to choose under a for-pay system, and in our system as well, unauthorized (by the government) treatments will not be paid for. That's just a fact of life. The government has a responsibility to use its funds effectively. So does the HMO - - only for the HMO, "effectively" often is defined in practice as a big fat bottom line, with bonuses for the execs that their departments judged most significant contributors to that happy situation. When personal profit is an objective, the patient gets fucked. There's a huge motivation on all concerned to spend the absolute minimum. Hence all the lawsuits. We have taken the profit motive out of health care.
-
In a for-pay medical system, my wife would have had the operation faster but the price would be millions of people unable to pay for decent medical care and some dying because of it. That's unacceptable. Health care is a right of the people, not a privilege that is bought and sold.
In the US, anything that is life threatening is required to be treated regardless of the insurance status of the person receiving treatment.
-
>>In the US, anything that is life threatening is required to be treated regardless of the insurance status of the person receiving treatment.<<
I'm not sure it even has to be life threatening. If you walk into an emergency room a hospital is required to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. That's usually on a sign in the waiting room.
-
In the US, anything that is life threatening is required to be treated regardless of the insurance status of the person receiving treatment.
Sure, but then you get billed for it. When you go for treatment, you agree to pay whatever they ask you to pay. You can get billed $10 for one aspirin, $90 for a cane, and all sorts of spurious crap will be added to the bill. Every hospital overcharges and most add bogus items to the bill. The only way to avoid paying their outrageous charges is to declare bankruptcy.
The main cause of bankruptcy in the US is huge medical bills.
-
>>Sure, but then you get billed for it.<<
That doesn't mean you actually pay for it.
-
That doesn't mean you actually pay for it.
===================================
No, they pass it on to a collections agency and add more fees.
Then they take you to court. If you owe it, and you do, because you had to sign a release form agreeing to pay whatever they wished to charge, the court orders you to pay it.
If you still do not pay it, the court orders your assets be sold and your wages garnished to pay it.
If you are some poor sap with a two-bit job, you might not be worth the legal fees. If you are unemployed, they will get a judgment against you and a collection agency will buy your debt for pennies on the dollar. If you apply for a loan or sell property, they will be on you to pay up. If you apply for a credit card, you will be given a very high rate by only the most predatory of lenders or you will be denied a card.
In most states, you have seven years of harassment by collectors. There are ways to prolong it, and if you owe a lot of money, they will do all that is possible to get you to pay.
For most people, bankruptcy is the only option.
It is the most common reason for bankruptcy in the US, despite all the casinos, all the NINJA loans, all the credit card scams.
-
The only way to avoid paying their outrageous charges is to declare bankruptcy.
Nope. As long as you pay something each month they cannot send you to collections. I know of one person who had hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, and they paid $5 a month. There is no way they are ever going to pay that debt off, and the hospital can't send them to collection.
-
THat sounds like a clever ploy, if it is true. I was told that one must reach a mutual agreement with the hospital on a payment plan.
-
THat sounds like a clever ploy, if it is true. I was told that one must reach a mutual agreement with the hospital on a payment plan.
Hospitals that take county or state funding (nearly all of them) are limited in the punitive actions they can take against those without insurance, if they are to continue to receive said funding.
-
This means that state and/or country laws decide the limits they can put on the former patient. There is no inherent country-wide right to pay $5 a month on a $200,000 bill.
-
This means that state and/or country laws decide the limits they can put on the former patient. There is no inherent country-wide right to pay $5 a month on a $200,000 bill.
Many laws in various areas are similar. For the same reason that welfare laws are similar from state to state - because if they were inherently better for the poor in one location, they would soon be flooded with poor from other locations.
-
...because if they were inherently better for the poor in one location, they would soon be flooded with poor from other locations.
Perhaps. But the poor are often entirely unaware of the laws and there are many factors other than money that motivate people to move.
I agree that if Nevada were passing out $1000 bills on the courthouse steps to every poor jobless person, and this were shown on TV during COPS or Maury Povich, there would be stampede for Nevada.
Alaske would be more problematical: it's cold, and a long ways away, and now to drive there you need a passport.
-
All I can say about Canadian healthcare is that it is up to the Canadians. If were given the option of having it here, I imagine I would vote for it.
Canada being a democracy, I don't see why a majority of Canadians should not have the right to vote to have this insurance or not.
Crocat's aunt has the option of coming to the US or any other place for lasik surgery if she so desires.
I think that the doctor was looking after the patient's best interest by operating on one eye at a time. In this way no possibility of total blindness, which is a very serious thing, exists.
I think that you have gotten the wrong end of this thread.... my Aunt is in England and doing fine. My debate has been about the fact that Michael's hypothesis was greatly flawed. You just bailed his ass out with the omg two eyes may be blind.
I think that if I decide I need both eyes done at once I should get both eyes done at once.... the government is not my mother, the doctor is not my mother.
-
Michael, that is the point in a nutshell....
wasting money by taking a 60 minute procedure and stretching it into two procedures and 9 hours.
You wouldn't need MORE freaking taxes....people would move through the system quicker in the long run and the money would be spent where it should be spent .... healthcare.
-
I am not sure if any of you know but I work as a para-legal. I see many medicare payments and liens.
I have seen people get a hospital bill for 32,000.00 and when medicare paid it settled for 2,300.00. This happens over and over again.
Now we all pay a premium every month for our medicare benefits it is cheap but we pay on every paycheck until we reach 65 so we are in fact prepaying our coverage.
I do not have health insurance supplied by my job so I have a major medical policy. It covers hospital and surgery. My husband and I are in our 60's and it is $300.00 per month. I think that is affordable.
-
<<My debate has been about the fact that Michael's hypothesis was greatly flawed. You just bailed his ass out with the omg two eyes may be blind.>>
LOL. You may be right. You suckered me in with the explanation that the reasoning of the NH was related to "turns" and "scheduling" and my hyothesis was intended to encompass the stated reasons.
<<I think that if I decide I need both eyes done at once I should get both eyes done at once.... the government is not my mother, the doctor is not my mother.>>
Not if the government also has to pay for all your entitlements if you are blinded and give you the tax break that the blind are entitled to. Then they have a right to minimize blindness across the board in order to spare themselves the expenses associated with dealing with it.
<<I am not sure if any of you know but I work as a para-legal.>>
It's permanently engraved in my memory. Part of the "escape from Michigan" story. It's particularly annoying to me because I haven't yet pulled off my own "escape from Ontario" story, which I feel is long overdue.
<<I have seen people get a hospital bill for 32,000.00 and when medicare paid it settled for 2,300.00. This happens over and over again.>>
That is typical of a for-profit system. Every bill is a gross over-bill. You should see the financial statements of the hospital and the total executive compensation. You'd be utterly amazed at what these greedy little bastards are raking in all at the expense of the sick and the dying. Socialized medicine bills out at cost, there is no profit margin to feed.
-
<<My debate has been about the fact that Michael's hypothesis was greatly flawed. You just bailed his ass out with the omg two eyes may be blind.>>
LOL. You may be right. You suckered me in with the explanation that the reasoning of the NH was related to "turns" and "scheduling" and my hyothesis was intended to encompass the stated reasons.
<<I think that if I decide I need both eyes done at once I should get both eyes done at once.... the government is not my mother, the doctor is not my mother.>>
Not if the government also has to pay for all your entitlements if you are blinded and give you the tax break that the blind are entitled to. Then they have a right to minimize blindness across the board in order to spare themselves the expenses associated with dealing with it.
"The definition of legally blind is that both eyes must have visual acuity of 20/200 or worse according to a standard Snellen Chart examination. Your ophthalmologist or optometrist can perform this test and certify your vision loss. There are more than tax consequences. You may qualify for disability, and social security benefits as well. Check with your state's department of health and human resources.
I hope this helps.
Richard Davis, MD"
Just to be clear here.... blind is not necessary to be in both eyes. But here is my point, if they screw up one eye and the cataract makes you blind in the other eye... won't you still be drawing the system either way?
-
<<I think that if I decide I need both eyes done at once I should get both eyes done at once.... the government is not my mother, the doctor is not my mother.>>
----------------------------
While it is true that your doctor is not your mother, medicine is still not a commodity such as one can buy at Wallyworld. If you request breast enhancement for a twelve-year old, you will be and should be refused. It for some werid reason, you wished to have a finger or an ear removed, the doctor would turn you down. A doctor swears an oath to not do harm to the patient.
-
<<Just to be clear here.... blind is not necessary to be in both eyes. But here is my point, if they screw up one eye and the cataract makes you blind in the other eye... won't you still be drawing the system either way?>>
Yeah, but you'd be drawing more on the system if one eye met the 20/200 test and the double surgery fucked them BOTH up. Besides, once again XO rides in to the rescue and saves my ass - - the Hippocratic Oath prohibits the doctor from doing harm. He can't do both at once since harm could result to two eyes instead of one.
-
Yeah, but you'd be drawing more on the system if one eye met the 20/200 test and the double surgery fucked them BOTH up. Besides, once again XO rides in to the rescue and saves my ass - - the Hippocratic Oath prohibits the doctor from doing harm. He can't do both at once since harm could result to two eyes instead of one.
Stupid argument; if he can do harm to one eye, he shouldn't operate on either. Nearly all surgeries can "harm" the patient; the Hippocratic Oath is not a bar to surgery.
It is, however, standard procedure to perform the two cataract operations 4-8 weeks apart.
Treatment
How is a cataract treated?
[snip]
If you choose surgery, your eye care professional may refer you to a specialist to remove the cataract.
If you have cataracts in both eyes that require surgery, the surgery will be performed on each eye at separate times, usually four to eight weeks apart.
http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/cataract/cataract_facts.asp (http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/cataract/cataract_facts.asp)
-
<<Just to be clear here.... blind is not necessary to be in both eyes. But here is my point, if they screw up one eye and the cataract makes you blind in the other eye... won't you still be drawing the system either way?>>
Yeah, but you'd be drawing more on the system if one eye met the 20/200 test and the double surgery fucked them BOTH up. Besides, once again XO rides in to the rescue and saves my ass - - the Hippocratic Oath prohibits the doctor from doing harm. He can't do both at once since harm could result to two eyes instead of one.
HA HA.... my husband had lasik surgery on both eyes.... in Canada... of course they screwed up both eyes....I think you guys need to understand that the oath means.... KNOWINGLY doing harm.
-
<<Stupid argument; if he can do harm to one eye, he shouldn't operate on either.>>
Stupid rebuttal. Only the omniscient physician would know before he begins what the end result will be. That's why the risks are explained to the patient beforehand, and that's why you sign a waiver before the operation confirming that you were told of the risks and absolving the physician if anything goes wrong.
<<HA HA.... my husband had lasik surgery on both eyes.... in Canada... of course they screwed up both eyes....>>
Nobody's got a monopoly on medical error, cro. I'm sorry your husband's eyes were fucked up, sorrier still that it was a Canadian doctor who fucked them up but most ophthalmologists, even Canadians, manage to get their patients through a Lasik procedure without fucking up anything. Incidentally, if the Lasik were for purely cosmetic reasons, it was not covered under our OHIP (governmental health plan.) So your husband was probably going to some for-profit clinic.
<<I think you guys need to understand that the oath means.... KNOWINGLY doing harm.>>
You must have a pretty elastic definition of "knowingly" - - if a doctor knows that it's safer to do one eye at a time, and chooses instead the risker alternative of both at once for no better reason than the patient's impatience, then IMHO, he's knowingly caused whatever harm resulted.
-
Only the omniscient physician would know before he begins what the end result will be. That's why the risks are explained to the patient beforehand, and that's why you sign a waiver before the operation confirming that you were told of the risks and absolving the physician if anything goes wrong.
Exactly. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath does not apply.
-
<<Exactly. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath does not apply.>>
Of course it does. It mandates the choice of the least risky alternative in the absence of any sound medical contra-indication. If one-eye procedures carry less risk of harm than two-eye procedures, the Oath binds the doctor to choose them.
-
Only the omniscient physician would know before he begins what the end result will be. That's why the risks are explained to the patient beforehand, and that's why you sign a waiver before the operation confirming that you were told of the risks and absolving the physician if anything goes wrong.
Exactly. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath does not apply.
=================================================
The Hippocratic Oath is a professional agreement.
The waiver is a legal agreement.
I don't think the Oath has a lot of legal standing, althoiugh legal precedent probably gives it some, but the waiver is required by malpractice insurance issuers.
-
The waiver is practical proof that in the real world, medical error does exist and that no doctor "knows" with absolute certainty that any procedure will or will not result in unexpected harm.
There is no waiver in the world that can absolve the doctor of his Hippocratic Oath. The waiver is merely intended to stop the patient from suing.
-
<<Stupid argument; if he can do harm to one eye, he shouldn't operate on either.>>
Stupid rebuttal. Only the omniscient physician would know before he begins what the end result will be. That's why the risks are explained to the patient beforehand, and that's why you sign a waiver before the operation confirming that you were told of the risks and absolving the physician if anything goes wrong.
<<HA HA.... my husband had lasik surgery on both eyes.... in Canada... of course they screwed up both eyes....>>
Nobody's got a monopoly on medical error, cro. I'm sorry your husband's eyes were fucked up, sorrier still that it was a Canadian doctor who fucked them up but most ophthalmologists, even Canadians, manage to get their patients through a Lasik procedure without fucking up anything. Incidentally, if the Lasik were for purely cosmetic reasons, it was not covered under our OHIP (governmental health plan.) So your husband was probably going to some for-profit clinic.
<<I think you guys need to understand that the oath means.... KNOWINGLY doing harm.>>
You must have a pretty elastic definition of "knowingly" - - if a doctor knows that it's safer to do one eye at a time, and chooses instead the risker alternative of both at once for no better reason than the patient's impatience, then IMHO, he's knowingly caused whatever harm resulted.
sometimes I don't know why I even respond to you. All I get is that I am stupid. I think that if you go back over time you will see that my opinions can be changed by reason. You on the other hand are unbending in any direction. You insult and denigrate anyone that has worked hard for a living and give those that have not a pass. If I relate a personal experience to you as an example you immediately put any validity of my point on that fact that I am boo hooing and that my emotions won't allow my to be rational.
Suffice it to say.
1. I am not stupid - in fact quite the opposite;
and
2. I am not prone to outbursts of uncontrolled emotion. Far from it - you could wire me up and see little change in my blood pressure or pulse when I am answering here.
Cro
-
Incidentally, if the Lasik were for purely cosmetic reasons, it was not covered under our OHIP (governmental health plan.)
==================================================
What would a "purely cosmetic reason" for Lasik be?
Isn't it always to make it possible to see better without glasses or contacts?
-
<<sometimes I don't know why I even respond to you. All I get is that I am stupid. I think that if you go back over time you will see that my opinions can be changed by reason. You on the other hand are unbending in any direction. >>
I have a lot of respect for you as a person and as far as I know I DID NOT INSULT YOU. If I did, you'll have to show me where, because it was purely unintentional. The "stupid argument -stupid rebuttal" was an exchange between Ami and I - - did you mistake my counter-insult to Ami as being directed at you?
<<You insult and denigrate anyone that has worked hard for a living >>
That is patently not true. You'll have to give me an example of that. I would be ashamed and embarrassed to put down anyone who had to work hard for a living. The whole idea behind the Communist Party is love of the working class and power to the people, which means the working people.
<< . . . and give those that have not a pass. >>
You mentioned crackheads and alcoholics and I pointed to the socio-economic causes of their condition. The money that could have prevented their ruination is still locked up in the accounts of the rich of our two countries.
<<If I relate a personal experience to you as an example you immediately put any validity of my point on that fact that I am boo hooing . . . >>
Yes, in that particular case, you were using a minor inconvenience as a reason to disband a system that means the difference between health and sickness or even life and death for millions.
<< . . . and that my emotions won't allow my to be rational.>>
I never even considered the issue. You'll have to show me where I said anything like that.
<<Suffice it to say.
1. I am not stupid - in fact quite the opposite;>>
I defy you to show me where I ever said or implied otherwise.
<<2. I am not prone to outbursts of uncontrolled emotion. >>
That, IMHO, is nothing to boast about (unless you're applying for a job as an airline pilot, surgeon or President of the U.S.A.) but I don't recall ever putting it in issue. It's certainly none of my business whether you are or not.
<<Far from it - you could wire me up and see little change in my blood pressure or pulse when I am answering here.>>
? ? ? ? ? Why would I? What the hell has that got to do with anything?
I'm really sorry to be the target of this outburst. I always respected you (still do) and have no idea what brought this on. I've got a feeling that you took an exchange ("Stupid argument" - "Stupid response") which was entirely between Ami and I, and somehow misperceived that as directed at you. Otherwise, I am totally mystified.
-
The "stupid argument -stupid rebuttal" was an exchange between Ami and I - - did you mistake my counter-insult to Ami as being directed at you?
You consider my saying that your argument is stupid to be an insult? Sensitive, aren't we?
-
<<You consider my saying that your argument is stupid to be an insult? Sensitive, aren't we?>>
No, it's not an insult, I should have chosen my words more carefully. In the context of cro's post, I was concerned that she took my words "stupid rebuttal" as an insult directed at her. So I was just trying to give her some background, explain to her that I had been responding to you in the same tone that you had used to me. I don't consider either one of them ("stupid answer" "stupid rebuttal") to be insults.
Since my point was not whether or not I had been insulted by you, I wasn't so careful in describing the exchange, so now I guess I got YOU piling on after cro. What's next, sirs is going to jump in with both feet? Holy shit guys, honest, I seek no wider war. Just please let me and cro straighten this out between us.
-
I just wanted to clarify so that I don't insult you unintentionally.
-
<<You consider my saying that your argument is stupid to be an insult? Sensitive, aren't we?>>
No, it's not an insult, I should have chosen my words more carefully. In the context of cro's post, I was concerned that she took my words "stupid rebuttal" as an insult directed at her. So I was just trying to give her some background, explain to her that I had been responding to you in the same tone that you had used to me. I don't consider either one of them ("stupid answer" "stupid rebuttal") to be insults.
Since my point was not whether or not I had been insulted by you, I wasn't so careful in describing the exchange, so now I guess I got YOU piling on after cro. What's next, sirs is going to jump in with both feet? Holy shit guys, honest, I seek no wider war. Just please let me and cro straighten this out between us.
What's next, sirs is going to jump in with both feet?
Someone out there understands my pain! LOL
-
Is that so. :-\
-
Is that so. :-\
Well, Hon, honestly, yes, it's very true.
Now that I read that someone has said that you come in and "jump" on another person when the issue isn't about you.....I can relate. You tend to come in out of the blue and make YOUR own point,.......especially when it's with BT...Then you throw salt on the wound.
Just an observation, Sirs.
You can really be a pain in the arssss sometimes. You refuse to see that. Instead you come back with a counter attack making it seem as though the other person is so wrong.
You don't stay out of the mess when it's not your mess.
But, hey, you're still a good egg.
-
Is that so. :-\
Well, Hon, honestly, yes, it's very true.
That's unfortunate you feel that way, especially when I so often see you "jump" on me, while giving certain other posters, who provide far more in irrelevent insulting and snide commentary a pass....simply becasue they happen to be a teacher. But hey, that's your decision
-
Is that so. :-\
Well, Hon, honestly, yes, it's very true.
That's unfortunate you feel that way, especially when I so often see you "jump" on me, while giving certain other posters, who provide far more in irrelevent insulting and snide commentary a pass....simply becasue they happen to be a teacher. But hey, that's your decision
Hey, I like you, Sirs...but you do tend to jump in on other's debate gate without the key.
But, I also respect you....such is the very essence of the gate.
Cindy
-
sirs is OK. I was only kidding when I wrote about him jumping in with both feet. This IS a debating club after all. It's not sirs' fault that he's wrong 24/7.
-
More of that projection manifesting itself again
-
More of that projection manifesting itself again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyXDK2JBk_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyXDK2JBk_U)