On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> >Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> >kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> >not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> And you'd likely get the same in the US.


....at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
premiums.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> >Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> >kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> >not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> And you'd likely get the same in the US.


....at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
premiums.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> >Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> >kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> >not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> And you'd likely get the same in the US.


....at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
premiums.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:

> > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > other laws need to be changed.
>
> Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> married, why discriminate against them?

Same reason there's opposition to same---- marriage: It makes people feel
icky.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:

> > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > other laws need to be changed.
>
> Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> married, why discriminate against them?

Same reason there's opposition to same---- marriage: It makes people feel
icky.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:

> > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > other laws need to be changed.
>
> Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> married, why discriminate against them?

Same reason there's opposition to same---- marriage: It makes people feel
icky.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:

> > So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
> > friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> > individuals.
> > Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> > kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> > not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> > prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
> their misery...

Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
lots of money, then get back to us.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:

> > So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
> > friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> > individuals.
> > Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> > kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> > not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> > prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
> their misery...

Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
lots of money, then get back to us.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:

> > So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
> > friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> > individuals.
> > Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> > kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> > not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> > prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
> their misery...

Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
lots of money, then get back to us.

DS

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
> >millions of people are against redefining marriage to include same ---
> >unions.
>
> In the 19th century, the same could be said about popular opposition to ending
> slavery.

And yet slavery was ended (at least in the US). And it wasn't ended by redefining
the word slave to mean something else. You keep equating my distaste for the way
some groups want to implement a goal with a distate for the goal. This is not
correct. If you want to grant identical rights to same --- unions and marriage, go
ahead, just don't do it my having some judge decide the legal meaning of the word
"marriage" has magically changed to include same --- unions.

Ed