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

 

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

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnj3m$e8j$12@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vssrf65q72uc7f@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg>
wrote:
> >> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent
less
> >on
> >> >> health
> >> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >> >insurance
> >> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
> >> >profit.
> >> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >> >> >out of business.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> >> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research
and
> >make
> >> >> huge profits on them.
> >> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
> >> >exorbitant
> >> >> profits.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
> >> >>
> >> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
> >> >research.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >so who
> >> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even
more
> >> >useful
> >> >> drugs
> >> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
> >having
> >> >the
> >> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
> >socialism
> >> >you'd
> >> >> end
> >> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >> >national
> >> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
> >> >TRILLIONS
> >> >> of
> >> >> >dollars.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US
to
> >get
> >> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate
reality.
> >> >>
> >> >> Totally false.
> >> >
> >> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
> >doesn't
> >> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
> >>
> >> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
> >
> >Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
> >It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
> >Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
> I see your IQ is still below room temperature.

Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they are
going to use it.
For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two asperin
and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to the
Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So he
heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which the
Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls short
in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a number and
wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where healthcare
comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment, because
we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment, Period.
Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend though,
so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnj3m$e8j$12@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vssrf65q72uc7f@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg>
wrote:
> >> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent
less
> >on
> >> >> health
> >> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >> >insurance
> >> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
> >> >profit.
> >> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >> >> >out of business.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> >> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research
and
> >make
> >> >> huge profits on them.
> >> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
> >> >exorbitant
> >> >> profits.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
> >> >>
> >> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
> >> >research.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >so who
> >> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even
more
> >> >useful
> >> >> drugs
> >> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
> >having
> >> >the
> >> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
> >socialism
> >> >you'd
> >> >> end
> >> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >> >national
> >> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
> >> >TRILLIONS
> >> >> of
> >> >> >dollars.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US
to
> >get
> >> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate
reality.
> >> >>
> >> >> Totally false.
> >> >
> >> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
> >doesn't
> >> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
> >>
> >> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
> >
> >Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
> >It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
> >Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
> I see your IQ is still below room temperature.

Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they are
going to use it.
For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two asperin
and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to the
Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So he
heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which the
Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls short
in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a number and
wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where healthcare
comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment, because
we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment, Period.
Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend though,
so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnj3m$e8j$12@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vssrf65q72uc7f@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg>
wrote:
> >> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent
less
> >on
> >> >> health
> >> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >> >insurance
> >> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
> >> >profit.
> >> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >> >> >out of business.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> >> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research
and
> >make
> >> >> huge profits on them.
> >> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
> >> >exorbitant
> >> >> profits.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
> >> >>
> >> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
> >> >research.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >so who
> >> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even
more
> >> >useful
> >> >> drugs
> >> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
> >having
> >> >the
> >> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
> >socialism
> >> >you'd
> >> >> end
> >> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >> >national
> >> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
> >> >TRILLIONS
> >> >> of
> >> >> >dollars.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US
to
> >get
> >> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate
reality.
> >> >>
> >> >> Totally false.
> >> >
> >> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
> >doesn't
> >> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
> >>
> >> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
> >
> >Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
> >It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
> >Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
> I see your IQ is still below room temperature.

Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they are
going to use it.
For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two asperin
and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to the
Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So he
heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which the
Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls short
in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a number and
wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where healthcare
comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment, because
we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment, Period.
Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend though,
so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
>
> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
living
> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
Canadian
> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs
of
> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States
and
> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
basicaly
> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling
her
> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met
her
> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
days
> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>
> 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.

You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
you would have been placed on a waiting list.

>
> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
>
> DS
>

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
>
> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
living
> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
Canadian
> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs
of
> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States
and
> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
basicaly
> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling
her
> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met
her
> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
days
> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>
> 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.

You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
you would have been placed on a waiting list.

>
> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
>
> DS
>

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
>
> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
living
> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
Canadian
> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs
of
> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States
and
> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
basicaly
> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling
her
> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met
her
> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
days
> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>
> 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.

You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
you would have been placed on a waiting list.

>
> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
>
> DS
>

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjr6$e8j$25@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bqmefb0k0h@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
> >living
> >> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
*vastly*
> >> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> >> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
> >Canadian
> >> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
needs
> >of
> >> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> >>
> >> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian
health
> >> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the
States
> >and
> >> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations.
While
> >> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
> >basicaly
> >> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA,
telling
> >her
> >> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS
met
> >her
> >> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> >> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
> >days
> >> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
> >>
> >> DS
> >
> >Mr. Stern, the individual in question reported this to me firsthand, and
is
> >a UK citizen with full knowledge of their "system". The Canadians in
> >question are my friends. I do not appreciate your characterization of my
> >references as "crapola", sorry you don't agree. Americans are being fed a
> >pile of ---- about the so called "superior" Canadian health care system,
or
> >the socialized meds of Europe. Both systems are institutionalized
mediocrity
> >at best. When their own citizens live in fear of receiving timely
TREATMENT
> >of illness, the system is a crock.
> >
> >
> Obejctive studies find the opposite, and I hardly think a right-wing shill
> like you has much credibility on the issue anyway.


Your lying again Lloyd, and Richard Nixon has more credibility than you.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjr6$e8j$25@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bqmefb0k0h@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
> >living
> >> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
*vastly*
> >> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> >> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
> >Canadian
> >> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
needs
> >of
> >> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> >>
> >> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian
health
> >> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the
States
> >and
> >> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations.
While
> >> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
> >basicaly
> >> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA,
telling
> >her
> >> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS
met
> >her
> >> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> >> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
> >days
> >> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
> >>
> >> DS
> >
> >Mr. Stern, the individual in question reported this to me firsthand, and
is
> >a UK citizen with full knowledge of their "system". The Canadians in
> >question are my friends. I do not appreciate your characterization of my
> >references as "crapola", sorry you don't agree. Americans are being fed a
> >pile of ---- about the so called "superior" Canadian health care system,
or
> >the socialized meds of Europe. Both systems are institutionalized
mediocrity
> >at best. When their own citizens live in fear of receiving timely
TREATMENT
> >of illness, the system is a crock.
> >
> >
> Obejctive studies find the opposite, and I hardly think a right-wing shill
> like you has much credibility on the issue anyway.


Your lying again Lloyd, and Richard Nixon has more credibility than you.