Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 19 to 24 of 24

Thread: State of the Union

  1. #19
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Cause he's a damned liar, who has shown time and time again his willingness to "make up" facts on the fly. I don't know about you but I have little tolerance for liars or thieves. This isn't about a difference of opinion. It's about honesty in presentation--because he's counting in part on our making honest claims. But maybe my name-calling is more offensive than a bald-faced lie.

  2. #20
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by contini View Post
    Even though skipster may be exaggerating, there is some degree of truth about waiting times for health care in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...stems_compared
    The waiting times are consistently pointed out as arguments against the Canadian health care system. My argument was that the waiting times are due to lack of doctors, since many Canadian doctors practice in America, where they can earn a lot more. Thus, the problem is the proximity, not the system itself.

    Documentary evidence of Canadian doctors practicing in America: http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/...or-better.html
    I don't dispute that there are longer waits, and your explanation for such waits seems reasonable on its face.

    If I said Canada's health-care system is the worst one around--that would be an exaggeration--and you would recognize it as such. However, if I made specific assertions of fact that were preposterous on their face:
    (1) my relative had to wait 8 mos to see a doctor;
    (2) my relative had to wait because of his name (in other words, health care is administered on some arbitrary basis rather than on need),
    then that would be something different than an exaggeration.
    Last edited by matclone; 01-30-2008 at 06:54 PM.

  3. #21
    Olympic Champ therick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    2,052

    Default Re: State of the Union

    The difference is that anyone with any sense knew he was exaggerating, or at least giving us only part of the story, with the part of the alphabet thing and the 8 months.

    You can call someone out on something without using a word like "scumbag". Simply quote what you believe is a lie and leave it at that.

    I'm not a fan of liars and thieves either, but I also have little tolerance for childish debate practices that include name calling. Keep the discussion to the topic. You don't know these people and they don't know you. Quit making it personal. Most of us are here because of a mutual respect that is earned through the blood, sweat and tears of training in the worlds oldest and greatest sport. I'd ask everyone to keep that in mind.

  4. #22
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    As for the line item veto, its not unconstitutional for state governors so why would it be for the pres. If it is then lets amend the constitution.
    It is unconstitutional becuase it would upset the balalnce of powers between the branches of government. Bush has already taken steps unconstitutionally(in my opinion) give the executive way to much power.

    It may work in some states because governors do not have the same amount of powers as the President.

    Finally, I do not think it would eliminate pork. The President would just let his own party's pork or his special project pass and then veto any spending by the party that is out of power.

  5. #23

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by matclone View Post
    Here is your lie I was referring to, scumbag:

    My mother-in-law's brother in Canada coudln't get in to see the doctor when he had chest pains because his portion of the alphabet wasn't allowed to see the doctor for another 8 months.
    I should tell this fine lady that you know so much more about her family's situations than she does!!

    This is nowhere near a lie, it is the absolute truth!! They live in Winnipeg, a city of nearly 750,000 in Manitoba. According to her, doctors and hospitals operate on an alphabetical system in which they see patients with last names beginning with particular letters in certain months. Her brother was having chest pains, but was told he had to wait until his letter came up, which was 8 more months.

    My mother-in-law was having problems of her own and had been waiting for 3 months to see the doctor when she moved to the US to marry my father-in-law. She told us that she was amazed that she could get in to see the doctor in the US a week after calling and had numerous tests done the day of the visit.

    (By the way, she is doing much better now, THey have found why she was uncontrollably losing weight and have helped her. She has come back to 110 pounds after a low of 82 pounds.)

    But, those two are not the only ones I have heard of. My boss grew up in Calgary and lived there until he was 23. He told me of similar stories, including his own. There seems to be no proximity of care trouble, since these are big cities. They tell me that in nationalized health care systems, people just have to wait.

    I wish you would please research your positions, not pretend to know others better than they know themselves, and stop name calling when the facts refute your position.

  6. #24

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by matclone View Post
    I don't dispute that there are longer waits, and your explanation for such waits seems reasonable on its face.

    If I said Canada's health-care system is the worst one around--that would be an exaggeration--and you would recognize it as such. However, if I made specific assertions of fact that were preposterous on their face:
    (1) my relative had to wait 8 mos to see a doctor;
    (2) my relative had to wait because of his name (in other words, health care is administered on some arbitrary basis rather than on need),
    then that would be something different than an exaggeration.
    This is precisely the problem I have with nationalized health care -- it is totally arbitrary. We have gone over this ad nauseum. What is "need"? Who decides it? Are we comfortable letting the government decide it? What if we don't agree with that decision? What recourse is there?

    In Canada, they tried to treat based on need, but found it didn't work. They kept finding cases in which one person wanted a heart transplant and another was in a car wreck. They treated based on what the governmetn determined was "need" and dealt with one of the two dying, then the family being upset, etc., etc.

    The "need" was determined by legislators who were not in the hospital when the events happened. And if the legislators didn't agree with the patients or doctors on the definition of "need" there was no recourse -- no way to re-evaluate the decision.

    Finally, they decided the most "fair" system was to operate alphabetically. We all think that is a totally rediculous way to run a hospital, but it is how universal health care is run in a system that tried to determine "need" instead of letting the market determine "need."

    The government is much more arbitrary than the market and has proven so over and over.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •