Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Sicko
Posted: Mon Jun 18 04:09:13 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9006414844032752909&hl=en

Michael Moore's new film on Universal Healthcare.

I'd get it quick if I were you - I can't imagine it'll go 24 hours before it gets taken down.

Not supporting or negating any views or anything, just wanted to post the link. Hope you enjoy it!

(PS: The neighbourhood where I volunteer in Windsor gets some serious screentime around the 43-minute mark)


 
addi Posted: Mon Jun 18 07:40:36 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Thanks, Crim, but I think I'll wait to see it in a theatre...

...and then suffer through attacks from all the right-wingers screaming that none of it is true

:)


 
Posted: Mon Jun 18 12:25:45 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  awww, and she's down already.


 
Posted: Mon Jun 18 16:30:17 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  UPDATED: try this link

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6703482849079349175


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 21 21:13:34 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Thanks, Crim, but I think I'll wait to see it in a theatre...
>
>...and then suffer through attacks from all the right-wingers screaming that none of it is true
>
>:)



None of it is true, and fuck you too.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 29 12:24:03 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Mr. Misses said:

>and fuck you too.

Oh, you'd like to : )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcuw-_AOk6g

He's gonna piss off a lot of the power brokers with this one

bless him


 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 30 22:45:35 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Just got back from seeing it. Powerful and much better than his previous movies in my humble opinion. Well worth the ticket price, if for no other reason than to get the gray matter going on an important topic.

I highly recommend it for those of you out there with open minds. I'm enough of a realist to know that closed minded people will avoid it like the plague, primarily due to MM (The Great Leftist Satin)being behind it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jul 1 09:35:17 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Bleh . . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Nzk1NzNjZDVjYzQ5MzU0YTZjYzNjZmVkMzcyMjJmOTQ=


 
addi Posted: Sun Jul 1 10:13:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Try a novel approach before trashing a movie for once, sir...actually watch it, instead of finding an article from some right-wing site to copy and paste here.
Then if you can find some facts disclaiming the points made in it fire away by all means.

For the record, at no time in the movie does Moore say "health care is free in Canada and France".


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jul 1 12:12:37 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Try a novel approach before trashing a movie for once, sir...actually watch it, instead of finding an article from some right-wing site to copy and paste here.
>Then if you can find some facts disclaiming the points made in it fire away by all means.
>
>For the record, at no time in the movie does Moore say "health care is free in Canada and France".
>
Are you saying the article is inaccurate ?


 
addi Posted: Sun Jul 1 13:04:09 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Are you saying the article is inaccurate ?

I'm saying why don't you consider spending a few bucks and a couple of hours going to see actually what the movie says so you can form an opinion from first hand experience. I know that's a scarey thought for a lot of Americans...I mean free thinking doesn't always lead to easy black and white answers to difficult questions, but I think it's worth it.

As far as the article is concerned I just happen to think the author's priorities are way out of whack. The propoganda machine has done a wonderful job over the decades getting us to believe that universal health care is the scarey boogeyman that will be the demise of the American way. Moore does a good job of showing that other countries believe it's important to take care of their own, regardless of one's socio-economic status, and also demonstrates that it doesn't mean the the quality of our lifestyles or care will have to suffer. I happen to believe that's a priority this country should embrace, in fact, that it's necessary for us if we want a strong America in the future.
What's happening to millions of Americans should disgust you as well. The status quo should no longer be tolerable to any of us.


 
addi Posted: Sun Jul 1 13:21:00 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'd like to know from any of the non-american GTers here about their country's health care systems (U.K., canada, singapore, australia, belgium, etc..), the good and the bad, and your experiences with it.
Things like:

Do you worry about having to pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency?
Do you have to worry about being turned down for coverage?
Does the tax burden of health care mean you have to live a substandard existence with wants and material needs?
Do you have to wait for an absurd amount of time to get operations, or when you go to a clinic?
Is the quality of the care you get poor?

and any other thoughts on the topic would be greatly appreciated.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jul 1 19:27:57 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If I need to find out anything about our healthcare system, or anything else for that matter, the films of Michael Moore is not the place to go.
He is admittedly a very talented filmaker, but his views are so skewed in one direction, the viewer will be entertained, but never enlightened.
Just one instance of his spin is the claim of 45 million uninsured. After you add up the millions who don't need it, don't want it, or are eligible for medicare/medicaid and did not apply, the remainder is more like 4 million. That's a huge difference, don't you think ?
I think the author's priorites are right on, he's not satisfied with the status quo either, but if you get the government involved, they will only make it worse. I cannot think of anything the government does efficiently other than take money from the people.


 
addi Posted: Sun Jul 1 20:35:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  from the The National Coalition
on Health Care (no connection whatsoever with Mr. Moore):

Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005

The number of uninsured rose 1.3 million between 2004 and 2005 and has increased by almost 7 million people since 2000.

The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens (2).

There are plenty of other sites to get the official figures on this that reflect essentially the same numbers.
These numbers didn't come from MM. They came from our own government, hif.

And.....this doesn't even touch the number of Americans that *do* have health coverage, but because of rising costs are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. One really disturbing trend in this is that with the ever increasing costs the level of proceedures covered, and the percentage of costs covered by the HMOs is decreasing. So we pay more and get less.

I can't really have an intelligent discussion on this with you if you're just going to start throwing out statistics will-nilly from your ____ , just to try and defend our broken current system.


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Mon Jul 2 03:47:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I'd like to know from any of the non-american GTers here about their country's health care systems (U.K., canada, singapore, australia, belgium, etc..), the good and the bad, and your experiences with it.
>Things like:
>
>Do you worry about having to pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency?

no

>Do you have to worry about being turned down for coverage?
no

>Does the tax burden of health care mean you have to live a substandard existence with wants and material needs?

no

>Do you have to wait for an absurd amount of time to get operations, or when you go to a clinic?

Sometimes, but I don't know what you see as an absurd amount of time over there :), if it's serieus, you're in in no time, if you just broke your arm or leg, chances are you have to wait 3 hours or so

>Is the quality of the care you get poor?

no

>and any other thoughts on the topic would be greatly appreciated.

Belgian Healthcare is one of the best in the european union, so I definatly can't complain.

A bit more on Belgian Healthcare:

Healthcare insurance is a part of the Belgian social security system and to benefit you must join a health insurance fund mutuelle (mutualité) or ziekenfonds (mutualiteit).

Once you are employed by a Belgian company, your contributions and those of your employer will be automatically deducted from your salary by the National Office for Social Security.

Then you sign up with a health insurance fund, which will reimburse your medical costs. To take you on, they will need a written certification of employment signed by your employer.

You are free to choose any company you want. Although most of them are affiliated to a religious or political institution, there is no real difference because reimbursement rates are fixed by the Belgian government.

These funds do not, however, cover 100 percent of your bills; you may be compensated for about half to three-quarters of a typical doctors or specialists visit.


It's hard for me to imagine having to worry about healthcare, it's just there.
They've put a really good commercial about Belgian Healthcare on tv a while back, if I trace it ,I'll place it ;)

Greetings



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 2 06:40:46 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>from the The National Coalition
>on Health Care (no connection whatsoever with Mr. Moore):
>
>Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005
>
>The number of uninsured rose 1.3 million between 2004 and 2005 and has increased by almost 7 million people since 2000.
>
>The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens (2).
>
>There are plenty of other sites to get the official figures on this that reflect essentially the same numbers.
>These numbers didn't come from MM. They came from our own government, hif.
>
>And.....this doesn't even touch the number of Americans that *do* have health coverage, but because of rising costs are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. One really disturbing trend in this is that with the ever increasing costs the level of proceedures covered, and the percentage of costs covered by the HMOs is decreasing. So we pay more and get less.
>
>I can't really have an intelligent discussion on this with you if you're just going to start throwing out statistics will-nilly from your ____ , just to try and defend our broken current system.
>
I won't try and defend our current system, I know better than most of here how it works and how it doesn't work.
I've been dealing with it in a most intimate way now for the last year since my auto accident. I'm still dealing with it.
I'm saying Michael Moore has no answers. I'm saying that the way he presents his issues, you don't really get an accurate picture of the problems.

C'mon, do you really want the federal government in charge of your most valuable possession ? Your health ?

What has the government ever done that would lead you to believe they could do this efficiently ?

I don't care if it's liberals or conservatives in charge, all they do is create beaurocracies that bloat themselves on the backs of the people.

A federally sponsored health insurance program would be the largest of these beaurocracies, run by federal employees, much like the ones you get to interact with at the DMV.



 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 2 07:04:05 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:

>It's hard for me to imagine having to worry about healthcare, it's just there.

Thanks, JI. I was hoping someone from overseas would add to this.

To your continued good health : )


 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 2 07:46:15 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>A federally sponsored health insurance program would be the largest of these beaurocracies, run by federal employees, much like the ones you get to interact with at the DMV.

I should think after what you've been through you'd have some first hand experience on our current system. At least we're in agreement that things could be different and better than what we have now, right?

I think it's a valid point to be concerned about any program run by the government. However we already have Medicare and Medicade and both of those programs have greatly assisted the elderly since its inception in the 60's. A government run program doesn't necessarily have to be a disaster. I know for a fact that there would be examples of waste and corruption infiltrating a system like that. No program is perfect. I just view it as the lesser of the evils. In recent polls over 60% of Americans state they want a national health care system started here, but the large health care companies (and the pharmaceutical industry) are pouring millions of dollars into fighting any measure that would hurt their profits. Once again greed rules over the needs of the everyday citizens.

It gets down to a very basic and fundamental philosophy difference between you and I about basic human rights I think. I believe the government is here to serve us...to "fear" us. I don't believe a true democracy is one where the people serve the government and live in fear of it.
National health care has been practiced successfuly in industrialized developed countries all over the globe now for decades. It's not like it's some unique untried experimental concept.

After we fix this health coverage issue we need to concentrate on fixing the gross absurdities of students (and parents) going into tens of thousands of dollars in debt just to get a higher education...but one problem at a time.

: )


 
FN Posted: Mon Jul 2 10:50:02 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I'd like to know from any of the non-american GTers here about their country's health care systems (U.K., canada, singapore, australia, belgium, etc..), the good and the bad, and your experiences with it.
>Things like:
>
>Do you worry about having to pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency?

no

>Do you have to worry about being turned down for coverage?

no

>Does the tax burden of health care mean you have to live a substandard existence with wants and material needs?

no.

However, I don't like taxes for ideological and economic reasons. I do however support the idea that anybody should be able to get decent healthcare, but it can be over the top here sometimes, both the taxes and the healthcare costs.

>Do you have to wait for an absurd amount of time to get operations, or when you go to a clinic?

no, unless you need an organ transplant, I hear those can take a while before one's available.

>Is the quality of the care you get poor?

I have nothing bad to say at this point in time about the healthcare me or a member of my family has recieved.

>and any other thoughts on the topic would be greatly appreciated.

The biggest problem with healthcare is that it costs. a lot.

And those costs are on the rise; more old people who'll live longer on top of it, a lot of new technologies,...

It's a fine line between what seems to me the ethical norm and the point where it is bad for the economy.

I'd say that right now where I live social services are insane. Healthcare costs a lot as well, but that's one type of insane I can live with, free welfare money for somebody who doesn't want to work and for immigrants is something else.


So long story short: practicly free healthcare is a good thing, as long as it doesn't go overboard.


 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 2 11:30:33 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  thanks much for the imput, Christophe.

For what it's worth I pretty much agree with your postion. It just seems to me that a persons health should be something a country with our high standard of living should have a government committed to help every one of it's citizens...not just those with great health coverage, or lot's of money.
Other government entitlement programs are subject to debate for sure.


 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 2 19:59:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  not going to start a new thread on this...all part of the same shit from a shithead of a president

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial

yes..I'm pissed. We send people to prison for years for using marijuana, but Libby breaks all kinds of federal laws, gets a fair trial, is convicted and sentenced, and doesn't serve one stinkin' day behind bars thanks to his powerful friends.

fuck justice
fuck Bush


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 2 22:02:49 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That was not a fair trial, those charges should never have been brought.

He was implicated in an investigation that never produced a crime.

I personally think Fitzgerald should be the one charged with a crime.

He knew that there would be no charges in the Plame investigation as he pursued Libby.

A complete and total waste of millions and millions of dollars.

You used the term "Libby breaks all kinds of federal laws". Which ones would those be ?

How could it be a fair trial when the prosecutor is investigating a non-crime, and he knows it's a non-crime while he's wasting our tax dollars pursuing this non-crime ? He knew from the beginning where the leak came from and embarked on a witch hunt to see who else he could snare.

How about sharing a little of your outrage for Sandy Berger ? I certainly didn't see you bitching about him not going to prison ?
Double standard ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 2 22:04:03 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, where exactly does one get years in prison for simple use of marijuana ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 3 07:35:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You used the term "Libby breaks all kinds of federal laws". Which ones would those be ?

* - Obstruction of Justice: GUILTY
* False statements to FBI investigators (about Russert conversation): GUILTY
* False statement to FBI investigators (about Cooper conversation): NOT GUILTY
* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about Tim Russert conversation): GUILTY
* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about the Matt Cooper conversation): GUILTY

Scooter was found guilty on 4 of the 5 charges. But one word from the Prez and *Poof* the 30 month prison term magically disappears.
It's clear that you feel that because he was a tool for Cheney, Rove and Bush (your buddies) that all the charges must have been bogus and politically motivated by the Liberals.

Once again we show the world: If you break the law in America, but have money and the right connections...don't sweat it.

Complete and utter bullshit




 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 3 07:50:00 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Also, where exactly does one get years in prison for simple use of marijuana ?

What universe are you living in? Certainly not this one.

Just a few facts:
Under the laws of fifteen states, you can get a life sentence for a nonviolent marijuana offense.
The average sentence for a convicted murder in this country is about six years.
About one out of every six federal inmates is in federal prison for marijuana.
There are real cases of people getting life without parole for a joint or for less than a joint.


We live in a society that can and has punished a person more harshly for selling marijuana than for killing somebody with a gun.

If I may be so bold I suggest you do some reading from sources other than right-wing op-ed pieces. You'll be amazed at the truths you'll discover.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 3 07:56:49 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey Canadians! (yeah you)

It was a serious question about your personal experiences there with a National Health Care system.

Heard from JI and Christophe. Your thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated...positive or negative.

thanks


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Tue Jul 3 15:41:05 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I believe it can be very frustrating knowing that something can be done much better, but you can't change it at this time, and it'll probably take a long time, before america ever changes their healthcare system as far as I see it. It would frustrate me to death.

I just want to add that you made me think about it, like I said, I can't imagine having to worry about healthcare, it's just there.
It made me be a little more gratefull about the system we have here, and I'm much more aware that we have to fight to keep it this way, and not let others take abuse from it. Like christophe said.

It's just so easy to take everything for granted...

I'm also curious about the views from people from other countries on this matter...

Take care!


 
FN Posted: Tue Jul 3 18:09:16 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>Like christophe said.

I don't think even half of the population here has a clue as to how fantastic it is to live here. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

The more you know about what goes on in the world (not saying that I know it all but at least I have a clue, which is better than I can say about most of my counterparts), the more you appreciate this place, in spite of some of its problems.

That's also why I don't like to see it screwed around with by people who have never contributed to it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 3 22:32:11 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Also, where exactly does one get years in prison for simple use of marijuana ?
>
>What universe are you living in? Certainly not this one.
>
>Just a few facts:
>Under the laws of fifteen states, you can get a life sentence for a nonviolent marijuana offense.
>The average sentence for a convicted murder in this country is about six years.
>About one out of every six federal inmates is in federal prison for marijuana.
>
Sure, but for distribution, not using, as you stated, at least not in recent years.

>There are real cases of people getting life without parole for a joint or for less than a joint.
>
Again not recently, at least that is not the norm. In most states, simple use of marijuana is no more than a misdemeanor.

>>We live in a society that can and has punished a person more harshly for selling marijuana than for killing somebody with a gun.
>
Yes, aberrations have occurred, but again, that is not the norm, not even close, and there are lots of reasons how that can happen, past offenses, quality of legal representation, and dammit some people just need to be killed.

>If I may be so bold I suggest you do some reading from sources other than right-wing op-ed pieces. You'll be amazed at the truths you'll discover.
>
I never expect to find any truths in the mainstream media and when I do, it shocks the hell out of me.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 3 22:40:06 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>You used the term "Libby breaks all kinds of federal laws". Which ones would those be ?
>
>* - Obstruction of Justice: GUILTY
>* False statements to FBI investigators (about Russert conversation): GUILTY
>* False statement to FBI investigators (about Cooper conversation): NOT GUILTY
>* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about Tim Russert conversation): GUILTY
>* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about the Matt Cooper conversation): GUILTY
>
>Scooter was found guilty on 4 of the 5 charges. But one word from the Prez and *Poof* the 30 month prison term magically disappears.
>It's clear that you feel that because he was a tool for Cheney, Rove and Bush (your buddies) that all the charges must have been bogus and politically motivated by the Liberals.
>
>Once again we show the world: If you break the law in America, but have money and the right connections...don't sweat it.
>
>Complete and utter bullshit
>
Well, there is still the matter of 2yrs probation and a quarter million dollar fine, but I'm sure you'll waive that off as inconsequential stuff.

Also, I noticed you ignored my comment about Sandy Berger.
Now how about all those last minute pardons Mr. Clinton signed on his way out, Marc Rich in particular. I don't seem to remember any complaining about that.
Double standard perhaps ?


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 3 23:06:18 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Well, there is still the matter of 2yrs probation and a quarter million dollar fine, but I'm sure you'll waive that off as inconsequential stuff.

yes, it is inconsequential. First of all he has had people organizing funds for him so chances are a good part of it or all of the fine won't come out of his pocket. The 2 years probation is nothing and you know it. Lastly, Bush was asked directly if he is still considering giving Scooter a full pardon down the road and the asshat didn't say he would, and didn't say he wouldn't..so I won't be shocked if before he leaves office that Libby is pardoned in full.

>Also, I noticed you ignored my comment about Sandy Berger.

This isn't about Berger. It's about Libby. Haad a thread been started about Berger back when it happened there is no way I would be defending the guy. And for the record, Berger didn't play a role in outing a CIA agent.

>Now how about all those last minute pardons Mr. Clinton signed on his way out, Marc Rich in particular. I don't seem to remember any complaining about that.

I hope you don't remember me complaining about that. If you did it would be kinda scarey...since I wasn't even around on GT back then. But now that you bring it up I didn't like Clinton doing that then and I still don't like that he did it now.

>Double standard perhaps ?

I've got all sorts of double standards in my life, hif. For example, I'm all for girl on girl action, but guy on guy just doesn't do it for me. Guilty of a double standard there.
But I have no double standards when it comes to the hypocracy and injustice of Bush's actions on this matter.

*I may have to rethink my response on JQ's poll question regarding killing someone if I could get away with it. I voted "no", but I'm not so sure any more...and I'll leave it at that.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Jul 4 00:57:08 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Up here in Canada
>Do you worry about having to pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency?

no

>Do you have to worry about being turned down for coverage?

no

>Does the tax burden of health care mean you have to live a substandard existence with wants and material needs?

not even close

>Do you have to wait for an absurd amount of time to get operations, or when you go to a clinic?

Some non-essential operations, such as knee and hip replacements can take a while. Seeing some specialists does take a while, but again, for non-critical problems. If you are seriously ill, you get through the system very quickly. For example, my grandfather had brain cancer, from him going in, to diagnosis, to operation was 2.5 weeks. All covered under universal health care. My dad had to wait for about 5 months to get his knee replaced, but again, that was non-critical, and the wait was in no way shape or form unreasonable.

>Is the quality of the care you get poor?

Very high quality.

>and any other thoughts on the topic would be greatly appreciated.

There are some issues regarding wait times for some surgeries that have been coming up in recent discussions regarding the health care system. But, again, I have to stress these are for "quality of life" surgeries, as opposed to "needed for life" surgeries. Overall the care you get is exceptional. In some parts of the country, due to the booming economy, it is difficult to find a GP, but again, if you look hard enough, you can find one. We as Canadians do have to pay for our health care through our taxes, and usually through a blue cross type of plan, but, it is very inexpensive, and if you can't afford it due to an economic situation, you aren't turned away. Our taxes are more than reasonable here, and it certainly doesn't affect my ability to purchase the things I want to/need to purchase.


 
sweet p Posted: Wed Jul 4 01:59:26 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i do not worry about having to pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency.
i do not have to worry about being turned down for coverage.
i do not live a substandard existence due to health care taxes.

[i live in ontario, canada.]

the quality of health care i have received has been pretty good. i would say that the worst health care i have received was at the university's health services place. there was a point during school when i was the most ill i've ever been and the waiting times in that place were beyond killer. of course they were loaded with tonnes of students desperately trying to defer exams or papers/suffering from mental distress/etc. but i was so sick i couldn't even walk. i had to resort to calling a friend to carry me all the way down to a downtown toronto hospital. the wait there was long but they placed me in a room immediately and offered me blankets and a wheelchair. any and every test was performed on me that day and while it took a very long time [waits in between, some confusion, etc.] they were thorough and as helpful as possible.
i have not undergone any surgeries in the past 21 years so i cannot comment from first hand experience, but as silentmind has already said, there have been some complaints concerning the waiting period for specific types of surgery.

sidenote: i get a lot of blood work done and i would appreciate it if the nurses were properly trained in the future, so as not to leave bruises or track marks along my arms. but i'd say that's a relatively small price to pay for all the other services i am eligible for in times of sickness.



 
addi Posted: Wed Jul 4 07:11:11 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Thank you silentmind and thank you P. I was hoping to hear from you guys. It confirms my opinion that your service isn't 100% perfect, but that all in all it's does a good job and you're well cared for, without it breaking the bank.

I hope the day comes when all Americans can respond the same way to questions like this.


*happy 4th my my U.S. friends here : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 4 07:24:29 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>>Also, I noticed you ignored my comment about Sandy Berger.
>
>This isn't about Berger. It's about Libby. Haad a thread been started about Berger back when it happened there is no way I would be defending the guy. And for the record, Berger didn't play a role in outing a CIA agent.
>
You're right Berger did not play a role in outing a CIA agent, and neither did Libby.
Matter of fact, Plame's status as covert was never established and no one was charged as such, for the record.
The prosecutor knew where the leak came from before he ever spoke with Libby, which pretty much made it a political witch hunt.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 4 07:52:23 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Some insight into Canada's health care system, it's really no better than ours. Emergencies are treated immediately, everyone else must wait. In Canada you wait longer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705


 
addi Posted: Wed Jul 4 08:09:13 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Matter of fact, Plame's status as covert was never established and no one was charged as such, for the record.


March 17th, 2007
"I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency," Plame told House members.."

Hmmm....now who am I going to believe about this? The White house (doing everything they can to smear Plame and clear themselves), or you hif (someone that gets all his "facts" from liberal hating web sites and Fox News)?
Man, that's a tough one.
: )


>The prosecutor knew where the leak came from before he ever spoke with Libby, which pretty much made it a political witch hunt.

Libby kept extensive notes on the subject back when this was all happening. He was caught making several lies and contradictions during his testimony. That's why he was sentenced. Of course he was a scapegoat. Anyone with half a brain knows he was protecting Rove and ultimately Cheney. Libby followed orders, like the good sheep that he was. The Wilson/Plame outing ultimately came from the VP himself. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion, in fact a 5th grade education would suffice.
SS officers in WWII were just following the orders from their superiors. That didn't clear them of wrongdoing in the subsequent trials at the end of the war.
Libby following directives given to him from above doesn't make him innocence of wrongdoing either.


*What I would give to have the chance to throw a football at Cheney's groin....damn.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jul 4 08:21:13 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Some insight into Canada's health care system, it's really no better than ours.

Don't be silly.
Once again you're completely missing the point.
In Canada (and the U.K. and Belgium, and France)every citizen gets healthcare coverage...EVERY PERSON....RICH OR POOR. When they are sick they aren't turned away because they don't have the $ or don't have the proper insurance.

On the contrary that happens all the time in America. Millions of people don't have any health insurance, and millions that do still find it overly expensive and still lacking in meeting their health needs.

That alone makes their system 100% better than ours.


Comprende?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 4 08:52:34 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Some insight into Canada's health care system, it's really no better than ours.
>
>Don't be silly.
>Once again you're completely missing the point.
>In Canada (and the U.K. and Belgium, and France)every citizen gets healthcare coverage...EVERY PERSON....RICH OR POOR. When they are sick they aren't turned away because they don't have the $ or don't have the proper insurance.
>
>On the contrary that happens all the time in America. Millions of people don't have any health insurance, and millions that do still find it overly expensive and still lacking in meeting their health needs.
>
>That alone makes their system 100% better than ours.
>
>
>Comprende?
>
Perhaps you could explain that to the survivors of the 15000 elderly deceased in France two years ago, because of nothing more than a heat wave.
This is what happens when the government is in charge.
They lost 5 times the amount we lost on 9/11 because the fucking government made the decision not to call the doctors and nurses back from their yearly vacations.

It all sounds wonderful, but it's not worth the price.
Tell me old friend, how much would your lifestyle change if you had to pay 48 percent of your incomome to the government in taxes ?


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Jul 4 12:02:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>Tell me old friend, how much would your lifestyle change if you had to pay 48 percent of your incomome to the government in taxes ?

Perhaps not as much as you might think. Taxes do serve a purpose. You know, you get services when you pay taxes. Like health care up here. You know how much it would have cost my grandpa to have his brain surgery had he not been in Canada, and been on the hook for the medical bill? About 300 K. But, he pays some taxes, which in the end pays for the surgery, but, he doesn't receive a bill for 300 K that he would have had to pay right away.

Oh, and by the way, that CBS story, which quotes the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, is a bit crackpot. First, the CTF is a far-right organization, that doesn't strike a cord with many people outside of Alberta. Second, a few isolated cases do not make for an epidemic. Yes, some people do fall through the cracks. But, as I said, on the whole, the care is excellent.

And do you notice how everyone in that story was complaining about how they didn't get their orthopedic surgery fast enough. Last time I checked, that was only to improve quality of life, not save a life. So, you should expect to wait. Yes there are some problems with the system, its not perfect. But, the problems are being fixed as they do come up. Also, I have to laugh at this quote

""These are not wealthy people; these are people who are in pain,""

And if they had to pay for the entirety of the their medical costs, they wouldn't be able to pay it. Because their not wealthy.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 4 13:12:07 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>Tell me old friend, how much would your lifestyle change if you had to pay 48 percent of your incomome to the government in taxes ?
>
>
>Oh, and by the way, that CBS story, which quotes the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, is a bit crackpot. First, the CTF is a far-right organization, that doesn't strike a cord with many people outside of Alberta. Second, a few isolated cases do not make for an epidemic. Yes, some people do fall through the cracks. But, as I said, on the whole, the care is excellent.
>
>And do you notice how everyone in that story was complaining about how they didn't get their orthopedic surgery fast enough. Last time I checked, that was only to improve quality of life, not save a life. So, you should expect to wait. Yes there are some problems with the system, its not perfect.
>
That's easy for you to say since presumably it's gonna be awhile before you need hip or knee replacement surgery. The pain can be unbearable, but it's only "quality of life" stuff, the large majority of the surgeries performed are "quality of life" stuff.

Even here in America, if you require emgergency surgery to save a life, no one is turned away, regardless of their ability to pay.

Most working Americans pay in the neighborhood of 25 percent of their income in taxes. Doubling their tax rate to get government sponsored healthcare is not getting a good return for their money.



 
addi Posted: Wed Jul 4 15:21:24 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Even here in America, if you require emgergency surgery to save a life, no one is turned away, regardless of their ability to pay.

That's the story we're told anyway. I bought that one hook, line and sinker too..so I'm not going to come down hard on you for believing it.
The truth is that it's a nice sentiment, but it's not reality.
Tell the mother they showed in "Sicko" that hif, after she took her baby girl to the closest hospital with a 104 degree temperature. It was an emergency. They turned her away because she had Kaiser coverage and they weren't a Kaiser hospital. After trying several times to get them to admit her child she finally gave up and was forced to take a taxi to the hospital that accepted Kaiser.
Her girl died on the way.

You need to open your eyes friend and quit buying the company line. All of us do.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 4 15:39:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Even here in America, if you require emgergency surgery to save a life, no one is turned away, regardless of their ability to pay.
>
>That's the story we're told anyway. I bought that one hook, line and sinker too..so I'm not going to come down hard on you for believing it.
>The truth is that it's a nice sentiment, but it's not reality.
>Tell the mother they showed in "Sicko" that hif, after she took her baby girl to the closest hospital with a 104 degree temperature. It was an emergency. They turned her away because she had Kaiser coverage and they weren't a Kaiser hospital. After trying several times to get them to admit her child she finally gave up and was forced to take a taxi to the hospital that accepted Kaiser.
>Her girl died on the way.
>
>You need to open your eyes friend and quit buying the company line. All of us do.
>
Yeah, and do you believe that happens all the time ?
It is illegal for an emergency facility to turn away those in need of emergency treatment. Did Sicko show what happened afterwards ? What became of those who turned the little girl away ? Were they prosecuted ?
What about the woman who died in the emergency room last week while the hospital staff walked around her and no one would help her ?
That stuff is not the norm, it is not something that happens all the time, but if you put the feds in charge of your healthcare, you can bet your ass it will become more commonplace.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jul 4 19:50:18 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Perhaps you could explain that to the survivors of the 15000 elderly deceased in France two years ago, because of nothing more than a heat wave.
>This is what happens when the government is in charge.
>They lost 5 times the amount we lost on 9/11 because the fucking government made the decision not to call the doctors and nurses back from their yearly vacations.

I can't comment on the US healthcare system, I don't know enough about it, but I know a thing or 2 about the one we have and the one my neighbouring countries have.

I like to agree with you on more things than you'd think hif, but the conclusion you're supposedly drawing from what happened during the heat waves in France in relation to the state of their healthcare system is simply a false one.

First of all, why on earth are you comparing it to 9/11?

Seriosuly, what does 9/11 have to do with anything?

And even if you'd compare it for some absurd reason, how do you compare such a localised event and the following healthcare to a nationwide natural disaster?

Secondly, it was more than a simple heatwave, it was a freak occurence that had not happened before in modern/recent history.

The affected people were all people on the verge of death and were mostly "pushed over the edge" because of it because their health status could not cope with such a heatwave.

Old age and the risks that come with it is beyond the domain of a healthcare system, even the French one.

The hospitals were a problem but not as much as the capacity of the french morgues, as most people were dead by the time they reached the hospital as many were reluctant to go to the hospital.

And because the morgues were full people had to be "stored" in the hospitals, which caused an extra burden and claimed a lot of the available space.

But there's more to it.

At the time it was a holiday season in France and other parts of Europe.

This lead to three things that are of importance in the story:
1) a lot of elderly people were more exposed to the sun and the heat during that time frame
2) In france a lot of elderly people are (semi-)taken care of by their families who were themselves on holidays and vacations thereby lenghtening response time reasonably for a lot of elders who did not feel like going to the hospital themselves
And 3rd, the fact that you mention, a lot of the medical staff was off of work themselves.

This third point though is open for debate as to how much blame falls on the healthcare system itself.

It was indeed the government that waited too long to recall the part of the medical staff that was having a holiday.

As I pointed out though I believe this was simply an erronous judgement call, of which I suspect that in the end was not too much different from what would have happened in the time span that had been needed to set up nationwide coordination plans anyway if the healthcare system had not been under the care of the government.

There's no way such a situation can be countered without centralised direction, which would not have magically appeared had those hospitals not been under central direction.


In fact, if I can believe what I'm reading in this thread, the difference would have been that a lot of elderly people would have died in taxi's instead of hospital beds.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jul 4 19:56:18 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It was indeed the government that waited too long to recall the part of the medical staff that was having a holiday.

Which also didn't stop a huge number of medical staff to voluntary report back for duty anyway.


The situation in France was a freak occurence during which everything that possibly could have gone wrong did.

If you are going to judge the state of the frnech healthcare system on that than it's just as fair if not moreso for a french guy to judge the state of the US legal system off of those cases where people are awarded millions of dollars for absurd claims or that the fact that the war in afghanistan still isn't over is because of a lack of funding of the american military.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jul 4 19:57:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And finally I want to state that Michal Moore is an opportunistic asshole that ranks right up there with such douche bags as Bono and Al Gore.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jul 4 20:50:32 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And finally I want to state that Michal Moore is an opportunistic asshole that ranks right up there with such douche bags as Bono and Al Gore.

So bringing causes like genocide, famine, AIDS, global warming, political corruption and healthcare makes them "douche bags"...Hmmmm

It's quite amazing you can read their minds and determine their true motives for bringing these issues to the forefront. What a unique and rare gift you posess.

*Interesting read on the France situation. Thanks



 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 4 22:03:38 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Chris, the only comparison I was making was the number of dead.
We lost 3000 people on 9/11, that's an astronomical number in itself. France lost 5 times that number because of a governmental decision, a very bad one.
I'm not saying that's the norm for their healthcare system, but if it only happens once per generation, that is still not acceptable.
These are the kinds of things that happen when government beaurocrats are in charge of things.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 4 22:06:37 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And finally I want to state that Michal Moore is an opportunistic asshole that ranks right up there with such douche bags as Bono and Al Gore.
>
Yes, yes, yes, and don't forget the race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 5 07:02:32 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
Yes yes yes! and while we're at it don't forget to include Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and Jesus. What a bunch of egomanic, race baiting, glory seeking, douche bags they were!





 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 5 07:22:32 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>It's quite amazing you can read their minds and determine their true motives for bringing these issues to the forefront. What a unique and rare gift you posess.

Yeah, it's one of my many qualities.

They aren't the holy trinity of douche bags, there are many similar people around but they were the first to come to mind.

In short:

Bono: "I wear sunglasses, all the time. That's who I am babe. Like, alright. Peace 'n shit. Help the poor while I count my money and do some advertising for my crappy music. I care as long as you buy my stuff and worship me." -> douchebag

Al Gore: "I care about the enviroment. The fact that I have quite the amount of stocks in green economy firms that wheel in cash is an added bonus. Also during my fantastic documentary about global warming I spend 25% of the time talking about my personal life because it's at the same level of importance as global catastrophy. I like to play on the emotions of women and flock sheep who're too stupid to see through the facade and qualify me as "a nice person". If you need me I'll be in my villa." -> douchebag

Michael Moore: "The fact that I'm fat just means that there's more for you to love, baby. I always wear shitty clothes and a baseball hat so that I look like my target audience and give the impression that I'm not a millionaire. The poor are a goldmine. During bowling for Columbine my biggest thrill was to bring out wheelchair boy and leech off his disability and malfortune by making myself look badass for going to walmart with him while looking smug. Walmart 0, Moore 1 baby yeah!" -> douchebag


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 5 07:25:17 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  See the pattern here?

"I care".

As soon as people with that amount of money say that about stuff that isn't related to it you can keep the douchebag-o-meter ready.


It's like those victorian age hags that used to give soup that was prepared by theirs underpaid maids and servant boys to the homeless and then talk all day about how charitable they are and how this shows that they're good, nay, better people morally than just about anybody.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jul 5 07:28:39 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  In reference to the global warming documentary: it wasn't a documentary, it was infotainment, infotainment with a bad taste aimed at personal glorification more than anything else.

Worst part is: the majority of people seem to be falling for it.


Which isn't to say that I contest the validity of the problem of global warning, that's something very different entirely.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 5 08:00:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  my my my..aren't we the jaded cynic.

I gleem from this that in your well reasoned opinion one can't be well off financially and still be sincere in touting the cause of their choice. Only low to moderately financially well off people can speak the truth.
And heaven help any of these people if they're human and have some inconsistances in their personal life, or, worse, if they're overweight and wear clothes differently than what we consider good taste...I mean it does automatically negate any of the truths in their message. How can anyone come to a different conclusion in their right mind?

: )


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Thu Jul 5 10:51:49 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't really think it's important why they do it, the most important thing is that they do it.

They bring up the discussion, and reach people that normaly wouldn't care, and that's a good thing.

Hif said:
< bad one.

It's better to have a good governement that makes 1 wrong decision, then one crappy governement that makes wrong decision's all the time, but it seems americans have a way to keep voting for that last one. Maybe it's time to open your eyes.

Not that I believe the governement in France really had a say in this, people die. And in those situation, there wasn't alot to be done about it.

From my point of view defending the amercican healthcare system is idiotic, because I know it can be done much better. Alot of people know this. But I also don't know enough about the healthcare system overthere. All I know is that you have to have the money, to get the care. And in my eyes, thats just wrong.


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Thu Jul 5 10:53:32 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>We lost 3000 people on 9/11, that's an astronomical number in itself. France lost 5 times that number because of a governmental decision, a very bad one.


My quote failed in the above


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 5 19:08:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>my my my..aren't we the jaded cynic.
>
>I gleem from this that in your well reasoned opinion one can't be well off financially and still be sincere in touting the cause of their choice. Only low to moderately financially well off people can speak the truth.
>And heaven help any of these people if they're human and have some inconsistances in their personal life, or, worse, if they're overweight and wear clothes differently than what we consider good taste...I mean it does automatically negate any of the truths in their message. How can anyone come to a different conclusion in their right mind?
>
Addi, what do you think of John Edwards ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 5 19:18:07 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >It's better to have a good governement that makes 1 wrong decision, then one crappy governement that makes wrong decision's all the time, but it seems americans have a way to keep voting for that last one. Maybe it's time to open your eyes.
>
>Not that I believe the governement in France really had a say in this, people die. And in those situation, there wasn't alot to be done about it.
>
Are you saying that every time they have a heat wave in France, that they will lose most of their elderly ?
Probably not, but that's how your logic sounds when you say "there wasn't a lot to be done about it".
Almost all of those deaths were preventable had they had professionals instead of beaurocrats in charge.

>From my point of view defending the amercican healthcare system is idiotic, because I know it can be done much better. Alot of people know this. But I also don't know enough about the healthcare system overthere. All I know is that you have to have the money, to get the care. And in my eyes, thats just wrong.
>
I'm not saying it couldn't be better, I'm saying socialized medicine, where the government is in charge of my healthcare is not something I support. And the truth is, if you need emergency care here, you will get it, whether you have the cash or not.
I'm not willing to double my tax burden to get mediocre health care.

Virtually everyone who is on this thread is very young and will say the healthcare they receive is very good, but for the most part, you probably haven't had to use it much.
Go out and ask 100 middle aged people what they think of it and see what you get.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jul 5 20:04:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Addi, what do you think of John Edwards ?

Sure he's cute and all, but I'm not really attracted to him in that way.

okay...serious now...dang

I like him for the most part. I like that he was one of the few dems that voted against going into Iraq..which at the time showed a lot of balls. From what I know of his stances on things I like him too, but there's a lot more I need to learn about him to be honest.
It's a long way off, but at this moment I'm leaning towards Obama. I'd be fine if Edwards got the nomination though. I don't want Hillary in. Before I'm blasted for saying this by the plinkers here I swear it has nothing to do with her being a woman. There's just something about her, and I can't put my finger on it, that I don't think is genuine. I also think the Republicans would have a hayday if she was the candidate, some of it unjustifed and some of it justified.

What makes you ask?


*I just got a very strong feeling of deja vu..like I have already posted this in the past here. Maybe between my thousands of posts and the fact that my memory isn't what it used to be that's all it is.


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Fri Jul 6 02:49:19 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>
>Virtually everyone who is on this thread is very young and will say the healthcare they receive is very good, but for the most part, you probably haven't had to use it much.
>Go out and ask 100 middle aged people what they think of it and see what you get.

wtf ?
Young people can't get seriously ill? or what the hell are you saying?
I know for a fact the healthcare we get is good. That's a very stupid remark hif.

Your worst fear having to pay higher taxes and loosing quality in healthcare ?
Tax paying wouldn't kill you, they aren't skyhigh. And you will not loose quality in healthcare. It'll just improve. I know it's hard for you to see with your eyes shut all the time. Conservatism is an ugly thing.






 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jul 6 06:36:58 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>
>>Virtually everyone who is on this thread is very young and will say the healthcare they receive is very good, but for the most part, you probably haven't had to use it much.
>>Go out and ask 100 middle aged people what they think of it and see what you get.
>
>wtf ?
>Young people can't get seriously ill? or what the hell are you saying?
>
What I'm saying is PROBABLY, most of you here on GT have not had a lot of experience getting healthcare. Youths do not get sick or injured as often as older people, that's a fact. And because of that, PROBABLY most of you have not had a lot of interaction with your healthcare system.

>I know for a fact the healthcare we get is good. That's a very stupid remark hif.
>
Very good compared to what ?
If you need an EKG, how long is the wait ?
If you need a new hip or knee, how long is the wait ?
If you need an MRI how long is the wait ?
>Your worst fear having to pay higher taxes and loosing quality in healthcare ?
If you need to see a specialist of any kind, how long is the wait ?

>Tax paying wouldn't kill you, they aren't skyhigh. And you will not loose quality in healthcare. It'll just improve. I know it's hard for you to see with your eyes shut all the time. Conservatism is an ugly thing.
>
What do you mean by "sky high" ?
I already pay upwards of 25 percent and I think that's too much based on the return I'm getting. Doubling that rate for healthcare is too high a price to pay.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jul 6 07:46:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Go out and ask 100 middle aged people what they think of it and see what you get.

You think we don't have any families or friends hif?

You can not like it all you want but the healthcare we get here is superb, even though I agree that some people take advantage of it.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Jul 7 04:49:14 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hif, what the fuck. The example I gave above at the beginning, my 80 something year old grandfather. The other example was of my dad, fifty something. My mom has had to have surgery. And due to my heavy involvement in sports, I've had to deal with the health care system numerous times, and in the area of the health care system that in Canada generally sees the greatest wait times. So, frankly your comment about young people having no contact with the health care system is quite unfounded. We all have to deal with it, and most people do deal with it. Not just old people. And to experience the health care system, you don't necessarily need to be treated by it.


 
FN Posted: Sat Jul 7 06:32:10 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>Conservatism is an ugly thing.

Don't make me have to wash your motuh with soap!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jul 7 07:25:23 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>hif, what the fuck. The example I gave above at the beginning, my 80 something year old grandfather. The other example was of my dad, fifty something. My mom has had to have surgery. And due to my heavy involvement in sports, I've had to deal with the health care system numerous times, and in the area of the health care system that in Canada generally sees the greatest wait times. So, frankly your comment about young people having no contact with the health care system is quite unfounded. We all have to deal with it, and most people do deal with it. Not just old people. And to experience the health care system, you don't necessarily need to be treated by it.
>
So you're saying that in the area of Canada that has the greatest wait times, the wait is actually negligible ?


 
addi Posted: Sat Jul 7 07:51:54 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Don't make me have to wash your motuh with soap!

I don't know what a "motuh" is in Flemmish, but it sounds pretty kinky.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jul 7 07:56:07 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>Don't make me have to wash your motuh with soap!
>
>I don't know what a "motuh" is in Flemmish, but it sounds pretty kinky.
>
I think it's actually an English word.
It's that loud thing under the bonnet on your automobile.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jul 7 07:56:48 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>Don't make me have to wash your motuh with soap!
>
>I don't know what a "motuh" is in Flemmish, but it sounds pretty kinky.

Is it Flemmish or Phlegmish ?


 
addi Posted: Sat Jul 7 08:37:10 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think this whole "wait time" thing has way too much emphasis being put on it.

Our combined household income is fairly good compared to many Americans. We have health coverage through my wife's work, which is better than what my work offers. Unfortunately I'm getting to that age when I have to see the doc a little more often than I once did. I had tests done twice, over a period of about two months this year. From those tests the Doc said that I should get one more to check out an area of concern. I've had to cancel that test being done twice now. Why? Because I'm still paying for the two previous sets of tests, and literally can't afford to add this new test to my bill. Health Insurance pays for part of it, but still a good chunk of money has to come out of my pocket. This isn't unique to me..I know it happens every day all over the country.
I make what should be a good enough income to take care of my health needs. I don't live in a big fancy house, or have an extravagent lifestyle by any means...yet because of our health care system I can't even afford to take care of my health needs. It gets even worse if I factor in what I should have done with dental and eye care needs.
My point is...so what if I lived in Canada and perhaps had to wait a few months to get this proceedure done? It would be done by now if I lived there because I wouldn't have to worry about paying for it. Who knows when, if ever, I'll go ahead and do it here because of the costs it will incure.

In the countries we've discussed medical emergencies are given the highest priority and taken care of in a timely manner. While preventative care may (and I emphasize may) require a longer wait period at least it does get taken care of, and in some cases I'm positive it catches problems in their early stages..preventing more costly and life threatening illnesses down the road.
There is a reason all of these countries have populations that have a longer life expectancy than us.

So am I willing to pay more in taxes to have national health coverage for me, and you, and Joe and Martha Blow living across the country?
Yes, without question. One less, very important, thing to stress out about and improve the quality of my remaining years left here...and yours.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Jul 7 15:45:58 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>So you're saying that in the area of Canada that has the greatest wait times, the wait is actually negligible ?


I'm saying it is more than reasonable.


 
FN Posted: Sat Jul 7 19:40:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Is it Flemmish or Phlegmish ?

It can be whatever you want it to be, that's the beauty of it


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jul 7 20:33:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  clowns are scary


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Jul 7 21:15:33 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  killer clowns from outer space.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]