Quote from: tbone0106 on July 03, 2012, 11:45:18 AM
Why are you surprised? The lib/prog approach to everything is to force someone else to do the heavy lifting. "Other people's money," the sine qua non of lib/prog policies, without which NONE of their programs are possible, is necessarily the product of other people's work and/or investment.

Surprised?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 03, 2012, 09:37:51 AM
Son, you simply aren't smart enough to talk your way around me. That: "answer a question with a question, because I don't know the answer", BS won't cut it here. If you have no idea of the most basic facts of geopolitical history, than you are simply regurgitating talking points you don't even understand.

No, you simply don't understand that when you present a claim, you're supposed to prove the damn point.  Here, for example, I invite you to justify the incredible logic taxed uses to prove solar's point:

The USSR does not exist. 
Therefore, Reagan destroyed the USSR.

Really, "epic fail" here doesn't even begin to describe the stupidity here.

The USSR's fall can be attributed to a large variety of factors; Gorbachev's reforms, Marshall's earlier rehabilitation of western Eruope, and the ineffectiveness of the Soviet political and economic system.  Could Reagan's policy have been a factor?  Perhaps, but screaming at the top of your lungs that Reagan's part in the rather inevitable collapse of the USSR atones for his tripling of the federal deficit, historic tax hikes, amnesty to illegal immigrants (and plenty of other policies that betray his conservative base), ineffectiveness at handling the AIDs epidemic and an economic policy that led to a major recession during the Bush era, is ridiculously simplifying the issue to prove a point.

Quote

Maybe because, being better informed than you are, we know that WHO rates healthcare on the amount of government involvement in Healtcare. So a system with a large private healthcare sector - the US, rates lower than a system with a large government healthcare sector - Canada. IOW, the socialist UN rates things on a socialism scale.

Ah, my bad.  It's just another organization involved in the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, which happens to control all credible scientific communities in the world.

Quote
Child when we do post the links supporting our point of view you simply ignore them, I'm tired of trying to be cooperative with a mindless ideologue, so Phuck you.

Are you too much of a pussy to use a curse word?

Perhaps your inability to actually read what I wrote would be part of your confusion here.  I specifically asked you whether or not these waiting times for MRIs are voluntary or emergency procedures.  You never answered me, predictably enough.

Quote
When you need an MRI in Canada you get placed on a waiting list. When I need an MRI here in the US, my doctor simply gives me a list of sites affiliate with his practice and a prescription/consult on what he would like done.

In fact, if you were to read your own link; which I know you did not, you'd realize that this waiting time only applies to non-urgent MRIs. 

And you still can't provide me a real study on the issue!  You just post anecdotal accounts and sob stories and expect this to pass off as proof of anything.

When the hair splitting ceases we can change it to Reagan facilitated the demise of the Soviet Union and then we can move on before we all die of pedantic boredom.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 08:30:01 AM
Funny, but stupid.  That the USSR no longer exists does not lead to the conclusion that your Glorious Leader Reagan destroyed it himself.  Let's stop with the non sequiturs and produce something of substance, OK?

You people have internet in Canada.  Start doing some research and learn about what happened.

Quote
I don't care what Danny Williams thinks.  Canada spends less money to cover more people, is more efficient and is ranked higher by the WHO.  You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.

Your system is crap.  That is why Williams came here.  You are having a hard time with that.  In your wonderful system, you guys couldn't provide a necessary procedure to save Williams.  If Williams stayed in Canada, he probably would have died. 

Great system you have there!

Quote
Prove it.

While you are learning about supply and demand, and competition, you will learn why it is better.  Keep studying young man...

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 09:18:32 AM
And does this statistic refer to voluntary or emergency MRIs?

hahahahahahaahahahaahaha

I feel sorry for you.

When I had to get an MRI, they scheduled me and I got in in less than a week.  I did the research on what would have happened if I needed to get my procedure done in Canada.  My solution:  I would have gone to the US.

hahahahaha

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 12:00:31 PM
No, you simply don't understand that when you present a claim, you're supposed to prove the damn point.  Here, for example, I invite you to justify the incredible logic taxed uses to prove solar's point:

The USSR does not exist. 
Therefore, Reagan destroyed the USSR.

Really, "epic fail" here doesn't even begin to describe the stupidity here.

The USSR's fall can be attributed to a large variety of factors; Gorbachev's reforms, Marshall's earlier rehabilitation of western Eruope, and the ineffectiveness of the Soviet political and economic system.  Could Reagan's policy have been a factor?  Perhaps, but screaming at the top of your lungs that Reagan's part in the rather inevitable collapse of the USSR atones for his tripling of the federal deficit, historic tax hikes, amnesty to illegal immigrants (and plenty of other policies that betray his conservative base), ineffectiveness at handling the AIDs epidemic and an economic policy that led to a major recession during the Bush era, is ridiculously simplifying the issue to prove a point.

I asked you a fairly straight forward, question:

QuoteWhen and why did the Soviet Union fall.

to which you answered:

QuoteThat's what I'm asking you, Holmes.

Your answer was bullshit. You see one of the advantages of having lived through that era - which you don't seem to have - is remembering what was said then and how things were seen at the time. Which usually differs from how they're seen after twenty years of revisionist history. The Soviet Unions collapse is only seen as "inevitable" now. Usually by the same Academics and Media types who were sure the Soviets were out performing the West in the early 80's. Gorbechev's reforms consisted of a last ditch attempt to save a dying system. The system was in crisis because if was called upon to compete in a race it couldn't win. It was being called upon to compete economically with the US, while at the same time mollifying a restive population in Eastern Europe and eventually in the Soviet Union itself. The usual Soviet method of sending in the tanks, was not going to work because this President had shown that he was quit willing to arm forces opposed to communist adventurism. That idea was very important. Other American Presidents, had stood by while the Soviets crush revolts in their sphere of influence, everywhere from East Germany to Czechoslovakia. Even when other Presidents had directly confronted Soviet backed efforts, they had always done so: "with one hand tied behind their backs". Truman wouldn't attack the Red Chinese in Red China. Johnson was careful not to bomb Soviet ships supplying the North Vietnamese regime. Carter stood by an fiddled his thumbs as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. But this Reagan guy was different. He actually gave the Afghan rebels weapons to kill Russians. And Soviet society was in the midst of what Prof. Glenn Reynolds refers to as a Preference Cascade. It's the moment when people living under an unpopular regime realize that regime is also unpopular with numbers of others living under that regime. It's one of the reason's the Soviets went to such trouble to suppress dissidents. The notion that everyone hated the regime couldn't be allowed to spread.

QuoteAh, my bad.  It's just another organization involved in the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, which happens to control all credible scientific communities in the world.

You know any number of people have recognized problems with their healthcare rankings. Anybody that wasn't utterly stupid - or a brain dead socialist ideologue - would be suspicious of a ranking that placed Costa Rica, Colombia, Chile, Morocco and Saudi Arabia a head of the United States.

QuoteThe rankings are based on an index of five factors:[1]

    Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
        Overall or average : 25%
        Distribution or equality : 25%
    Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
        Overall or average : 12.5%
        Distribution or equality : 12.5%
    Fair financial contribution : 25%

Ill just quote something from Wiki which points out flaws in the methodology:

QuoteJournalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]

Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[8] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]

And that was simply at the top of the page when I did a Google search on the WHO rankings.

QuoteAre you too much of a pussy to use a curse word?

Child I spent 10 years in The Suck (The Marines). I can curse for minutes at a time, when the urge hits me. And the only words repeated will be mother fucker. It's just that most of the time I try to remain civilized when debating. Although I'll admit that dealing with your stupidity, makes it more and more difficult. Oh and I use that "euphemism" because so places I post censor curse words, and sometimes no other word will do. 

QuotePerhaps your inability to actually read what I wrote would be part of your confusion here.  I specifically asked you whether or not these waiting times for MRIs are voluntary or emergency procedures.  You never answered me, predictably enough.

If YOU read, you'd see where I pointed out a specific incident which showed that CAT SCANS AND MRI's ARE NOT PART OF ROUTINE EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE, as they are for example head trauma hear in the states. I've been to Emergency Rooms for things like falls, where I twisted an ankle, or banged a knee. I made sure to warn them that could not give me an MRI because I'm still carrying around metal from Vietnam.

QuoteIn fact, if you were to read your own link; which I know you did not, you'd realize that this waiting time only applies to non-urgent MRIs.

And in your fevered, little left wing mind, those wait times are acceptable!

QuoteAnd you still can't provide me a real study on the issue!  You just post anecdotal accounts and sob stories and expect this to pass off as proof of anything.

Listen A-hole go do some of you own work for a change. Simply Google wait times for MRI's in Canada. Do you think all those varying stories are figments of somebody's imagination? And moving the goal posts is getting old also. Every five second you - and scum like you - are telling us how good healthcare is in your latest socialist utopia - until we point out all the ways in which it sucks - at which point we start to get the: "it's not so bad " crap. Jesus, in Great Britain, just keeping the hospitals clean has become an issue!

This whole Reagan debate was hilarious.

Ronald Reagan was one of the most non-conservative republicans. But people remember him as the perfect conservative.

Quote from: redlom xof on July 04, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
This whole Reagan debate was hilarious.

Ronald Reagan was one of the most non-conservative republicans. But people remember him as the perfect conservative.

More goal post moving. I remember back to when you Liberals were screaming he was a reactionary. Why is it you folks on the left assume that if you come up with something different from what you said five minutes ago, no one will notice! You know, your holding the intelligence of the right in such contempt, combined with a totally unwarranted belief in the self evident superiority of your political positions, really renders you unable to actually defend what you believe. You folks seem to believe that regurgitating the latest talking points, combined with an appeal to the authority of a biased media, is really all it takes to prevail in an argument. Well that, and the usual snide insults.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 12:00:31 PM
No, you simply don't understand that when you present a claim, you're supposed to prove the damn point.  Here, for example, I invite you to justify the incredible logic taxed uses to prove solar's point:

The USSR does not exist. 
Therefore, Reagan destroyed the USSR.

Really, "epic fail" here doesn't even begin to describe the stupidity here.

The USSR's fall can be attributed to a large variety of factors; Gorbachev's reforms, Marshall's earlier rehabilitation of western Eruope, and the ineffectiveness of the Soviet political and economic system.  Could Reagan's policy have been a factor?  Perhaps, but screaming at the top of your lungs that Reagan's part in the rather inevitable collapse of the USSR atones for his tripling of the federal deficit, historic tax hikes, amnesty to illegal immigrants (and plenty of other policies that betray his conservative base), ineffectiveness at handling the AIDs epidemic and an economic policy that led to a major recession during the Bush era, is ridiculously simplifying the issue to prove a point.

Ah, my bad.  It's just another organization involved in the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, which happens to control all credible scientific communities in the world.

Are you too much of a pussy to use a curse word?

Perhaps your inability to actually read what I wrote would be part of your confusion here.  I specifically asked you whether or not these waiting times for MRIs are voluntary or emergency procedures.  You never answered me, predictably enough.

In fact, if you were to read your own link; which I know you did not, you'd realize that this waiting time only applies to non-urgent MRIs. 

And you still can't provide me a real study on the issue!  You just post anecdotal accounts and sob stories and expect this to pass off as proof of anything.

I'm sure you didn't avoid my post on purpose, now did you?
Here, allow me to repeat...


You're asking me to prove the obvious?

Yes or no, did the USSR collapse under Regan's watch or not?

Granted, the Soviet Union was suffering, as do all Nationalist Socialist Communist regimes, but Reagan knew this and pushed the USSR to the brink, then shoved them over the edge.

Without Reagan's plan, the USSR very well may have recovered and held it's grip, but it didn't.

From the outset, Reagan moved against détente and beyond containment, substituting the objective of encouraging "long-term political and military changes within the Soviet empire that will facilitate a more secure and peaceful world order", according to an early 1981 Pentagon defense guide. Harvard's Richard Pipes, who joined the National Security Council, advocated a new aggressive policy by which "the United States takes the long-term strategic offensive. This approach therefore contrasts with the essentially reactive and defensive strategy of containment". Pipes's report was endorsed in a 1982 National Security Decision Directive that formulated the policy objective of promoting "the process of change in the Soviet Union towards a more pluralistic political and economic system". [The quotes from Peter Schweizer, Reagan's War.]

A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan's massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm

Quote from: taxed on July 03, 2012, 01:29:49 PM
You people have internet in Canada.

Your lack of reading comprehension makes me question whether or not you would be capable of following your own advice, as you seem to be under the impression that I live in Canada.

QuoteStart doing some research and learn about what happened.

Do some research on burden of proof.

Quote
Your system is crap.  That is why Williams came here.  You are having a hard time with that.  In your wonderful system, you guys couldn't provide a necessary procedure to save Williams.  If Williams stayed in Canada, he probably would have died. 

I don't give a damn what Danny thinks.  Show me your statistics, or go home.

Quote
Great system you have there!

Yes, great system.  A system that is statistically more cost effective and is rated higher by several internationally recognized health organizations.  Your blind hatred of government simply prompts you to create a knee-jerk "public service = bad" generalization, so you can conveniently go back to worshiping the private sector.

Quote
While you are learning about supply and demand, and competition, you will learn why it is better.  Keep studying young man...

And when you stop providing the anecdotal accounts of politicians and celebrities and start providing studies and statistical data supporting your case, maybe I'll listen.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 08:20:39 AM
Your lack of reading comprehension makes me question whether or not you would be capable of following your own advice, as you seem to be under the impression that I live in Canada.

You are too clueless to not be Canadian.  Canadians are weird people.

Quote
Do some research on burden of proof.

I inherently know much more than you will ever learn.  It's a benefit for being a freedom loving, productive American.  If I need advice on what Syrup goes with what waffle, then I'll give you a call.

Quote
I don't give a damn what Danny thinks.  Show me your statistics, or go home.

Of course you don't care -- you're Canadian and have no clue.  One of your biggest supporters for your system comes here to our system.  You really are funny.

Oh, here are some statistics that Bert posted the other day.  I think it was a serious post, but it is comical at the same time:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/

Quote
Yes, great system.  A system that is statistically more cost effective and is rated higher by several internationally recognized health organizations.  Your blind hatred of government simply prompts you to create a knee-jerk "public service = bad" generalization, so you can conveniently go back to worshiping the private sector.

Here is a Canadian talking about Canadian health care system.
ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!

Your system is a joke and ours is superior, contrary to your socialist health organizations, where all their leaders come here when they need treatment.

This is too easy.

Quote
And when you stop providing the anecdotal accounts of politicians and celebrities and start providing studies and statistical data supporting your case, maybe I'll listen.

I couldn't have had my level of success in Canada.  It really is that simple.

Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
You are too clueless to not be Canadian.  Canadians are weird people.

Tell me, when's the last time you've visited?

Your logic is, as usual, abysmal anyhow; even if all Canadians were clueless, it does not mean that all clueless people are Canadians.  You clearly think with the right side of your brain.

Quote
I inherently know much more than you will ever learn.  It's a benefit for being a freedom loving, productive American.  If I need advice on what Syrup goes with what waffle, then I'll give you a call.

Care to actually respond to the point?

Quote
Of course you don't care -- you're Canadian and have no clue.  One of your biggest supporters for your system comes here to our system.  You really are funny.

Clearly, the fact that anecdotal evidence is a poor substitution for a real argument still eludes you.

Quote
Oh, here are some statistics that Bert posted the other day.  I think it was a serious post, but it is comical at the same time:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/

Over what kind of treatment?  What demographic of people are doing this?  Where is your control?

Quote
Here is a Canadian talking about Canadian health care system.
ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!

So the opinion of a simple Canadian qualifies as statistical evidence, in your warped view of burden-of-proof.  Never mind that Stephen Harper had to promise Canadians that he would not adopt our health care system in order to win office.

Quote
Your system is a joke and ours is superior, contrary to your socialist health organizations, where all their leaders come here when they need treatment.

Our health care system is probably better for the wealthy, sure.  But are you just too lazy to provide me with anything other than a comedic YouTube video detailing the opinion of a single man, or are you just under the impression that this qualifies as evidence?

Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
You are too clueless to not be Canadian.  Canadians are weird people.
I inherently know much more than you will ever learn.  It's a benefit for being a freedom loving, productive American.  If I need advice on what Syrup goes with what waffle, then I'll give you a call.

Of course you don't care -- you're Canadian and have no clue.  One of your biggest supporters for your system comes here to our system.  You really are funny.

Oh, here are some statistics that Bert posted the other day.  I think it was a serious post, but it is comical at the same time:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/

Here is a Canadian talking about Canadian health care system.
ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!

Your system is a joke and ours is superior, contrary to your socialist health organizations, where all their leaders come here when they need treatment.

This is too easy.

I couldn't have had my level of success in Canada.  It really is that simple.

If socialized medicine is sooo good, why did Congress refuse to participate in Hussein care?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 12:52:32 PM
Tell me, when's the last time you've visited?

Not for a while.  You people seriously live in the 1980s.  I love Canada, don't get me wrong, but I couldn't live there, because I have a standard of living.

Quote
Your logic is, as usual, abysmal anyhow; even if all Canadians were clueless, it does not mean that all clueless people are Canadians.  You clearly think with the right side of your brain.

All Canadians are clueless.

Quote
Care to actually respond to the point?

You have no point.  You are a joke.  Usually when I talk with someone like you, I am talking to them while I'm looking overhead at a menu.  I am a higher class because our capitalist system allowed me to succeed.  You are stuck in a rut with the rest of your Canadian drones (unless you were born into money in Canada).

Quote
Clearly, the fact that anecdotal evidence is a poor substitution for a real argument still eludes you.

Genius, experience trumps all.  I understand you won't buy into anything until a socialist or one of your hypocritical politicians tells it to you, but there is a reason people like myself are smarter than you.  I  knew how crappy the Canadian system was back when I had little money and lived with my roommate from Canada.  We used to play sports all the time, and we would get injuries, but when he got injured with a fracture or something, he would NEVER go to the hospital.  I always thought he was just being Mr. tough guy.  I didn't understand until a few years after when we were playing some midnight basketball with another friend, and our other friend messed up his ankle very badly.  We all stopped our game and went to the emergency room in the middle of the night.  A few hours later after x-ray, splint, crutches, etc., our Canadian friend would not shut up how he couldn't believe we just went in there like that and got fixed.  He was amazed.  He sort of admitted that is why he never went to the hospital when injured, because mentally he couldn't grasp the concept of being able to just go and get it fixed.  In Canada, you may heal up before you even get to see the doctor!   Yes, that is one single out of a million anecdotes.  I have another one when I talked with a Canadian in the US on vacation and we talked about my surgery I had and what I would have gone through to get done here what I would have taken 6 months.

Sorry dude, your system is seriously crap, and I wouldn't wish your health care system on one of my enemies.

Quote
Over what kind of treatment?  What demographic of people are doing this?  Where is your control?

Dude, anything.  How about a simple MRI?  Pets in Canada have better health care than Canadian humans!  You people are seriously odd.

Quote
So the opinion of a simple Canadian qualifies as statistical evidence, in your warped view of burden-of-proof.  Never mind that Stephen Harper had to promise Canadians that he would not adopt our health care system in order to win office.

He brought cameras and interviews people, genius.  That's not opinion.

Quote
Our health care system is probably better for the wealthy, sure.  But are you just too lazy to provide me with anything other than a comedic YouTube video detailing the opinion of a single man, or are you just under the impression that this qualifies as evidence?

Your health care system isn't good for anyone! What are you talking about "for the wealthy"??

Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 01:12:41 PM


Your health care system isn't good for anyone! What are you talking about "for the wealthy"??

IN other words, when a wealthy Canadian get s injured, he hops a flight to the US for care.