Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
married, why discriminate against them?

 

And you'd likely get the same in the US. Both system can handle the
more common stuff.

For the less usual stuff -- apparently the wait for hip arthroscopy is
at least 3 years. Both Canada's detractors and supporters point to
the much larger number of MRIs in the US, which means a longer wait
for diagnosis in Canada as well.

 

Can't you three or four guys that are continuing this thread find some
common group to post to, rather than all of this crossposting?

Try alt.argumentative.idiots.wont.give.up

 

Reading it is not enough. You need to understand it - which apparently is not so
easy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

Regards,

Ed White

 

Further, Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
neo-Conservatives. Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts
went to the bone, where they should have gone to the fat.

My experience (ageing parents, two fairly recent children and their
maladies, friends surviving cancer) has been extremely positive. Waits
tend to be for MRIs, synthetic hip and knee replacements and such, 15
years ago, how long did you have to wait for such things? About 10
years! We keep forgetting that these are pretty new, expensive
technologies, some of which have not proven to be any more effective
than the old, cheap technologies.

The best news that you can hope for when you take your child into the
kids hospital here is that you have a long wait ahead of you! It means
that your kid is going to be OK and you likely should have waited till
morning and gone to your GP. If you get an orange sticker on your file
and they grab the kid and run, call your family and your priest! The
kid is in trouble. This I know from friends' experiences. I love to
wait at the kids ER!!!

Dan

 

Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
corruption.

Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
old.

The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to Iran).
It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they mistakes?
Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to run a
country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had Communism
not been contained.

 

No, they analyzed health care from the CR Editorial Staff's point of view. This is
not the same as any particular consumer's point of view, or even the average
consumer's point of view. I read CR, but I definitely don't agree that they
represent my point of view.

Ed

 

I have not advocated having the government interfere with what consenting adults
do in the privacy of their own home. However the government continually regulates
what people can do in and out of their own homes, so I don't see where this
particular argument is going anywhere. A government that can't make any rules to
regulate behavior is not a government at all. It is anarchy.

Ed

 

It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment? Or do you define a
scientist as someone who agrees with you?

Ed

 

Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
discrimination? For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a woman.
Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to a
different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.

Ed

 

Actually, our research facilities and findings are second to none. A
lot of American companies carry out their research in Canada because of
the great value they get for their buck (not just exchange rate, but
quality of work carried out). Since we don't have too many "Designer
Clinics" you are right, we don't develop needless, high-cost surgical
practises that are funded by the very richest individuals, but our
advancement of transplant technologies, cancer therapies, etc has been
significant (for a country with 1/10th the population of the Excited
States). Admittedly, the government healthcare system will not pay for
un-proven, touchy-feely "treatments" advanced by some shaman from
Mexico! If it is proven in a properly-designed, double-blind study to
be effective, it is normally added to the "covered" list.

Dan

 

Daniel Stern has already made this argument. I can imagine it would be easy to
find laws that tried to prohibit such unions, but I doubt they did it by trying to
define the word marriage as you are suggesting. I know that in NC, a law was
passed specifically validating interracial marriages in order correct the harm
done my an old law that declared such marriages invalid. If a similar law was
passed validating same sex unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess
I'd be satisfied if not delighted. I still don't understand the need to call a
same sex union a marriage. And I am opposed to trying to implement this through
the judiciary by redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has
been understood for many years.

Ed

 

Then this:

These two statements seem contradictory.

DS

 

Slavery wasn't changed, it was abolished. They didn't change slavery by redefining
the word "slave" to be equivalent to the word "citizen." Amendments to the
constitution were made, laws were passed. The injustice was corrected (or at least
partially corrected). If you want to grant the same rights to same sex unions as
are granted to traditional man / woman marriages, go ahead, I'll support you. Just
don't try to redefine the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to achieve the
desirable goal .

Ed

 

No, you meant "you and whoever agrees with you, ignoring the thousands in
the field of science who disagree with you "

SATs.

You've posted the same anology a dozen times, it proves your point no better
now than it did the first time you used it. Bet you don't even know what the
initials SAT stand for.

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

2> Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many
2> new innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at
2> all.

....it's worth noting here that massage therapy for a wide range of
ailments and injuries *is* covered under OHIP. The training and licencing
standards for LMTs are accordingly tougher. This is a great example of how
the Canadian system doesn't just toss everyone an aspirin and say "get
lost" as those who've no direct experience with it seem to think.

DS

 

If the goal is provide civil unions with the same benefits as traditional
marriages, then pass laws to provide equivalent benefits. There are many
companies that provide the insurance benefits to domestic partners and others
that don't provide insurance benefits to the wife/husband of married employees.
Wills can be written and contracts drawn up to handle most of the things you are
complaining about. Fixing the injustice does not require a redefinition of the
legal meaning of a "marriage."

Ed

 

Mike Harris did *tremendous* damage with thoughtless slashing once the
Federal government downloaded a lot of responsibility to the provinces.

That said, even the results of Harris' hackjob are better than the US
"managed care" mess.

DS

 

I think you are wrong on this point. If it was possible to accurately measure
"liberalness," I believe CR would fall to the liberal side of the average opinion.
There is nothing wrong with this. I just don't think it is reasonable to assert
that CR doesn't have opinions that the average American would consider liberal.
"Woman's Outlook" is a magazine published by an advocate group. I doubt if you
would claim they were neither liberal or conservative.

Ed