The Jobs Britons Won't Do

[sirs]

Actually, what part of Steyn's facts that prompted his thesis are bogus??
- Is there not a special fast-track immigration program, especially to facilitate the bringing in of Doctors, from anywhere??
- Are not over two-thirds of doctors registered to practice in the UK in 2003 from overseas overseas/outside of England?
- Was not Dr. Abdulla a recipient of his medical qualification out of Baghdad in 2004 and was practicing in Britain by 2006. Did not his co-plotter, Mohammed Asha, graduate from Jordan in 2004 and came to England the same year?
- Is it not true that white males comprise 43.5 percent of the population but now account for less than a quarter of students at UK medical schools?

The problem Sirs, is that the grouping of facts have nothing to do with each other! Look at each one individually:

Spoken like a true defense attorney.  I have no problem looking at individual trees, Js.  I also have no problem surveying the forest.  Individually, each component can be rationlized in some way, as you've attempting to do.  Taken in their totality however, a picture can be painted, that obviously shines yet another negative light at that well intentioned idea of UHC.  I understand why you need to do what you do, and I won't even go into the many stories specifically I've been privvy to, of Canadiens coming HERE to the U.S. for their healthcare.  So "the problem" is much greater and far more widespread than Steyn providing facts that you yourself are conceding

[_JS]

Spoken like a true defense attorney.  I have no problem looking at individual trees, Js.  I also have no problem surveying the forest.  Individually, each component can be rationlized in some way, as you've attempting to do.  Taken in their totality however, a picture can be painted, that obviously shines yet another negative light at that well intentioned idea of UHC.  I understand why you need to do what you do, and I won't even go into the many stories specifically I've been privvy to, of Canadiens coming HERE to the U.S. for their healthcare.  So "the problem" is much greater and far more widespread than Steyn providing facts that you yourself are conceding

See Domer, I'm learning!

Sirs, anyone can throw facts together. The thesis is what makes a logical argument out of it. There is no thesis here. You cannot refute what I've said. More than that, you show no willingness to even listen or learn. You don't even understand how Canada or the UK work on a basic level.

For you, they must be attacked at all costs because they cannot be right. If they are right, then the tiny reality you've created has flaws - and that cannot be allowed.

Steyn simply threw some facts together and called it an argument. But those facts have no association with each other. Look at them Sirs. For your own benefit take some time and use some critical thinking.

[sirs]

Spoken like a true defense attorney.  I have no problem looking at individual trees, Js.  I also have no problem surveying the forest.  Individually, each component can be rationlized in some way, as you've attempting to do.  Taken in their totality however, a picture can be painted, that obviously shines yet another negative light at that well intentioned idea of UHC.  I understand why you need to do what you do, and I won't even go into the many stories specifically I've been privvy to, of Canadiens coming HERE to the U.S. for their healthcare.  So "the problem" is much greater and far more widespread than Steyn providing facts that you yourself are conceding

Sirs, anyone can throw facts together. The thesis is what makes a logical argument out of it. There is no thesis here. You cannot refute what I've said. More than that, you show no willingness to even listen or learn.

The most glaring ommission on your part, thru-out this entire discussion Js is that this supposed "unwillingness to listen or learn", has been addressed in that I've spent years reading & learning about our system compared to others, which again includes my intimate knowledge of healthcare when the Fed is running it.  Neither can you refute the plethora of examples I've been privvy to of Canandiens fed up waiting for service there, and coming here for their healtcare, nor can you can not refute the facts Steyn presented, and instead attempt to deflect them by rationalizing each one as if it was the only fact presented.  I, on the other hand, attempting to be more objective, have been able to see yet another glaring problem with the idea of Universal Health Care.  But since you're so gung ho of wanting it to happen, you refuse to acknowledge the monumental pitfalls associated with it, especially if applied to our massively huge population.

So, who again is the one unwilling to listen or learn??

[_JS]

The most glaring ommission on your part, thru-out this entire discussion Js is that this supposed "unwillingness to listen or learn", has been addressed in that I've spent years reading & learning about our system compared to others, which again includes my intimate knowledge of healthcare when the Fed is running it.

Then why didn't you know how the Canadian Healthcare system is run?

Neither can you refute the plethora of examples I've been privvy to of Canandiens fed up waiting for service there, and coming here for their healtcare

When have I said that there aren't waiting times, or people that come here for care?

nor can you can not refute the facts Steyn presented, and instead attempt to deflect them by rationalizing each one as if it was the only fact presented.

That is where you are wrong. I have looked at the article as a whole and as the facts are separated, which by the way you did when you asked me to verify them. What I was pointing out to you Sirs was that if you would apply some critical thinking you could see that a facts such as: "Is there not a special fast-track immigration program, especially to facilitate the bringing in of Doctors, from anywhere??" is really meaningless. We do the same thing for our current system. Steyn does nothing here, there is no thesis. It is a throwing shit at the wall article.

So, who again is the one unwilling to listen or learn??

Hmmmm. I think the answer is obvious. You claim expertise but have not shown it. You show Steyn's "facts" but they are easily shown as useless statistics when a little daylight is placed upon them.

Sirs, I easily admit the shortcomings of Universal Healthcare. As you say, there are queue problems. There are problems with highly specialised elective surgeries. I have no problem with objectivity. I claim no utopia. I deal with reality.

What I won't do is deal with half-truths or attempts to link something like universal healthcare to terrorism or appeals to racism.

[sirs]

So, who again is the one unwilling to listen or learn??

Hmmmm. I think the answer is obvious. You claim expertise but have not shown it. You show Steyn's "facts" but they are easily shown as useless statistics when a little daylight is placed upon them.

I never claimed "expertise", I claimed "experience", and I demonstrated how when one applies logical thought to the facts Steyn presented you so quickly made to seperate into their own little entities, conclusions can be drawn that demonstate all the more how bad a Federally run UHC system could and likley would be, especially applied to the population mass of the U.S.

What I won't do is deal with half-truths or attempts to link something like universal healthcare to terrorism or appeals to racism.

Oy   

[_JS]

I never claimed "expertise", I claimed "experience", and I demonstrated how when one applies logical thought to the facts Steyn presented you so quickly made to seperate into their own little entities, conclusions can be drawn that demonstate all the more how bad a Federally run UHC system could and likley would be, especially applied to the population mass of the U.S.

So apply the logical thought...

Flesh it out. I want to hear the conclusions that come from this article.

[sirs]

I never claimed "expertise", I claimed "experience", and I demonstrated how when one applies logical thought to the facts Steyn presented you so quickly made to seperate into their own little entities, conclusions can be drawn that demonstate all the more how bad a Federally run UHC system could and likley would be, especially applied to the population mass of the U.S.

So apply the logical thought...Flesh it out. I want to hear the conclusions that come from this article.

I thought I had, but if you want more detail, you'll have to wait until I get home tonight where I can spend more quality time in the saloon, vs these intermittent sound bytes.  You are referring to my conclusions, on top of the already mountain load of negative repercussions, already presented, correct?

[_JS]

I'm talking about taking what Steyn has said and using logic (as you said) to make it into an argument against Universal Health Care.

[sirs]

I'm talking about taking what Steyn has said and using logic (as you said) to make it into an argument against Universal Health Care.

You want me to take this tree and claim it as the reason against UHC?  It is one of MANY trees that presents a forest of logic that presents an arguement against UHC.  This article alone doesn't, and I doubt very seriously Steyn was making that claim.  And I sure as hell know I wasn't. 

So, what are you asking then?

[_JS]

I demonstrated how when one applies logical thought to the facts Steyn presented you so quickly made to seperate into their own little entities, conclusions can be drawn that demonstate all the more how bad a Federally run UHC system could and likley would be

You want me to take this tree and claim it as the reason against UHC?  It is one of MANY trees that presents a forest of logic that presents an arguement against UHC.  This article alone doesn't, and I doubt very seriously Steyn was making that claim.  And I sure as hell know I wasn't.

You're losing me.

I thought I was pretty clear.

"I'm talking about taking what Steyn has said and using logic (as you said) to make it into an argument against Universal Health Care."

In the top quote above, that is exactly what you said you'd do.

[sirs]

You want me to take this tree and claim it as the reason against UHC?  It is one of MANY trees that presents a forest of logic that presents an arguement against UHC.  This article alone doesn't, and I doubt very seriously Steyn was making that claim.  And I sure as hell know I wasn't.

You're losing me.  I thought I was pretty clear.  "I'm talking about taking what Steyn has said and using logic (as you said) to make it into an argument against Universal Health Care."  In the top quote above, that is exactly what you said you'd do.

When you add it to the mountain load of other comprehensive repercussions that have been made, incl quality vs quantity, exponential waiting periods for elective surgeries/procedures, the massive financial hit the economy would take, the inane bureacrcy that only the Fed could drag along, etc., etc., etc, absolutely can be made as an arguement against UHC.  And we won't even delve into it not being a Constitutional obligation, as that's in another thread

So, is that the detail you wish me to delve into?  And before you even start, isloating each "tree", and trying to nit pick it to the point that each one alone is the sole reason I'm (or anyone else) assessing UHC's fatal flaw is a tactic that won't hold any ground, since it's been already made by me that no one is claiming just 1 item is the monkey wrench to UHC working.  It's everything together, in their totality (that being the forest) that makes that point.....in spades. 

[_JS]

When you add it to the mountain load of other comprehensive repercussions that have been made, incl quality vs quantity, exponential waiting periods for elective surgeries/procedures, the massive financial hit the economy would take, the inane bureacrcy that only the Fed could drag along, etc., etc., etc, absolutely can be made as an arguement against UHC.  And we won't even delve into it not being a Constitutional obligation, as that's in another thread

OK. To clear something up.

1. So you are agreeing that Steyn's article standing alone is rubbish? Or am I mistaken? If not then I'd like to first see the fleshed out reasoning as to why it is a good article and what the central theme of it is.

So, is that the detail you wish me to delve into?  And before you even start, isloating each "tree", and trying to nit pick it to the point that each one alone is the sole reason I'm (or anyone else) assessing UHC's fatal flaw is a tactic that won't hold any ground, since it's been already made by me that no one is claiming just 1 item is the monkey wrench to UHC working.  It's everything together, in their totality (that being the forest) that makes that point.....in spades. 

2. Sure, I'd like to see the above. But, you cannot simply lay down a mandate that each "tree" or point is unaissalable because the entire thesis of your argument must be tackled in one fail swoop. That isn't how debate works. A syllogism can be false simply from one logical error in one part of the syllogism. I'd be more than willing to discuss UHC with you, but you cannot simply restrict the debate like that.

For example if you come at UHC hard with how expensive it will be, I am going to show you that we pay so much more right now per patient than countries with a UHC system. Calling that unfair before we even begin is akin to us having a chess match but taking my Rooks and Queen away at the very start.

[sirs]

When you add it to the mountain load of other comprehensive repercussions that have been made, incl quality vs quantity, exponential waiting periods for elective surgeries/procedures, the massive financial hit the economy would take, the inane bureacrcy that only the Fed could drag along, etc., etc., etc, absolutely can be made as an arguement against UHC.  And we won't even delve into it not being a Constitutional obligation, as that's in another thread

OK. To clear something up.  1. So you are agreeing that Steyn's article standing alone is rubbish? Or am I mistaken?

That'd be mistaken.  Simply another cog to the repercussive examples provided that demonstrates the fatal flaws to UHC

So, is that the detail you wish me to delve into?  And before you even start, isolating each "tree", and trying to nit pick it to the point that each one alone is the sole reason I'm (or anyone else) assessing UHC's fatal flaw is a tactic that won't hold any ground, since it's been already made by me that no one is claiming just 1 item is the monkey wrench to UHC working.  It's everything together, in their totality (that being the forest) that makes that point.....in spades. 

2. Sure, I'd like to see the above. But, you cannot simply lay down a mandate that each "tree" or point is unaissalable because the entire thesis of your argument must be tackled in one fail swoop. That isn't how debate works. A syllogism can be false simply from one logical error in one part of the syllogism. I'd be more than willing to discuss UHC with you, but you cannot simply restrict the debate like that.

I never claimed a restriction to debate.  What I have prefaced is the effort to simply take each point, and ratioanlize it as to how off the wall an idea or position it is, isn't going to make much of a dent to the conclusions one can logically draw when taken in their totality.  By all means, you can try....all good defense attorneys live by that creed, "If it doesn't fit you must aquit".  Even if 1 tree is found to be a little thin in its leaves doesn't dent the forest of trees that produce the conclusions I've been referencing.

For example if you come at UHC hard with how expensive it will be, I am going to show you that we pay so much more right now per patient than countries with a UHC system.

That's largely do to the litigious society we now live in, and the reams upon reams of regulations & buracracy we currently have, ironically facilitated by the Fed.  At one time I could evaluate a home health patient in just over an hour.  Now, thanks to medicare and the exponential increase in paperwork we have to fill out, takes 2 1/2+ hours to do the same eval on a similar patient.  1 time I had to spend over an hour and a half doing Medicare required paperwork in order to spend 5 minutes teaching a patient how to use a single point cane.

And you're advocating making it ALL Federal, not just medicare patients.  Frellin amazing

[_JS]

How much of that has to do with Medicare Fraud?

Bill Frist's family settled a fraud deal to the tune of $1.7 billion which was nowhere near the total of the amount that HCA had defrauded the Government (meaning us).

Perhaps by removing these private companies and therefore removing the fraud, such paperwork will be unnecessary. Moreover, in most countries with UHC systems, doctors have far more protection against malpractice suits.

And you're advocating keeping the same system.  Frellin amazing!

[sirs]

How much of that has to do with Medicare Fraud?

I'm sure that plays a part, significant even.  And you want to exponentially create a field in which fraud can even be more widepread, which would require the government to be that much more bureacratic & regulative.  You're helping to make more of my arguements for me, which I guess I should thank you for.

Bill Frist's family settled a fraud deal to the tune of $1.7 billion which was nowhere near the total of the amount that HCA had defrauded the Government (meaning us).

and......................?

Perhaps by removing these private companies and therefore removing the fraud, such paperwork will be unnecessary.

Excuse me?  Private = Fraud??      Actually, remove the source of the repetative paperwork, such repetative paperwork would become .... abolished

Moreover, in most countries with UHC systems, doctors have far more protection against malpractice suits.

Show me some serious tort reform in this country, and maybe we can start to have a dialog

And you're advocating keeping the same system.

You bet, considering the alternative you're suggesting