Total Health Care
F. Yew
care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
We need free health care.
We need free prescription drugs.
We need free eye care.
We need free dental care.
We need free home care.
We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
We didn't get medicare without a fight - doctors went on strike against
it - and an extension of health care won't be easy. But history shows
us that without a fight, we don't get anything.
Once we have total, free, health care, we should move on to free post-
secondary education for all who qualify, total protection of the
environment, and to guarantee some form of shelter for all citizens.
We live in a prosperous, wealthy, part of the world and there is no
reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of democratic
socialism.
It's time to THINK BIG!!
F. Yew
I'm always willing to show the rich how to spend their money.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
F. A.
Define how "free" will be paid for
F. A.
where this free, total, health care system exists.
Hartmann Schaffer
>It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
>care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
>the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>
>We need free health care.
>
>We need free prescription drugs.
>
>We need free eye care.
>
>We need free dental care.
>
>We need free home care.
>
>We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
>
>In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
better think about that again. do you really want to turn all those
health care workers into state slaves with the added responsibility to
work after health care hours to get food, clothing, and shelter? with
those prospect i can easily imagine that recruiting new health care
workers might turn into a problem
hs
think before you post
archie kennedy
Right on. And I would add, we need to develop new ways to fund universal
social programs. The right is right. We must cut the debt and cut it to
nothing. What we need to do is to take ownership of the countries vast
resources and instead of allowing this wealth to be appropriated by the
rich, this wealth should be used to feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and
health care for those that need the above mentioned commodities.
All needs should be provided universally.
Archie
F. Yew
> Define "free"
No cost at point of service.
> Define how "free" will be paid for
It will be paid for by taxing wealth.
Any other questions?
F. Yew
It's time for the "left" to set the political agenda again.
> "F. Yew" wrote:
>
> > It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
> > care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life
into
> > the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
> >
> > We need free health care.
> >
> > We need free prescription drugs.
> >
> > We need free eye care.
> >
> > We need free dental care.
> >
> > We need free home care.
> >
> > We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
> >
> > In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
> >
> > We didn't get medicare without a fight - doctors went on strike
against
> > it - and an extension of health care won't be easy. But history
shows
> > us that without a fight, we don't get anything.
> >
> > Once we have total, free, health care, we should move on to free
post-
> > secondary education for all who qualify, total protection of the
> > environment, and to guarantee some form of shelter for all citizens.
> >
> > We live in a prosperous, wealthy, part of the world and there is no
> > reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of democratic
> > socialism.
> >
> > It's time to THINK BIG!!
> >
F. Yew
> ...further to my point. Name me one country, just one country in the
world,
> where this free, total, health care system exists.
I don't think it does. That's why Canada, with our immense wealth,
could show/lead the way.
Or are you one of those who thinks Canada should always follow?
F. Yew
Leading the way in Alma.
F. Yew
> > It's time to THINK BIG!!
>
Absolutely!
The national debt costs us money. A deficit costs us even more. So,
it makes sense to eliminate both and stop paying interest to the
wealthy. Tommy Douglas understood this very well.
If the NDP fought for total, free, health care, people would have a
reason to vote for them again. As it is today, the NDP is only
fighting to keep what we have and, politically, that's not very sexy
and doesn't turn on the voting public. Needless to say, I agree we
have to keep what we have but we must expand it greatly.
Canadians deserve free, total health care.
F. Yew
F. Yew
> In article <90e454$c11$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, F. Yew
<fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
> >care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life
into
> >the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
> >
> >We need free health care.
> >
> >We need free prescription drugs.
> >
> >We need free eye care.
> >
> >We need free dental care.
> >
> >We need free home care.
> >
> >We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
> >
> >In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
>
> better think about that again. do you really want to turn all those
> health care workers into state slaves with the added responsibility to
> work after health care hours to get food, clothing, and shelter? with
> those prospect i can easily imagine that recruiting new health care
> workers might turn into a problem
Health care workers are not "state slaves."
SantaSat*n
> Define how "free" will be paid for
F.A., you can answer this question yourself by connecting the dots between
F. Ewe's statements:
"...there is no reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of
democratic socialism... (later) I'm always willing to show the rich how to
spend their money."
See, F. Yew's socialism goes like this: Anyone wealthier than F. Yew and
Small Business are considered "rich". With that definition in mind, all
"rich" people gained their wealth through greed and luck. They are scum, and
do not deserve the rights of F. Yew, Small Business, career welfare
"victims", pedophiles, lesbian pornographic filmmakers, illegal immigrants
and ex-con Shawinigan hotel owners. As such, "Rich" people are OBLIGATED to
pay for social programs that allow F. Yew, Small Business, career welfare
"victims", pedophiles, lesbian pornographic filmmakers, illegal immigrants
and ex-con Shawinigan hotel owners the same standard of living as them. This
is fair, because "rich" people (remember my above definition) are scum.
Furthermore, "rich" people should accept this fate and be quiet (read:
socialist police state). They have no right to call for tax reform, justice
reform, social reform, or immigration reform, as that would be "selfish",
"fascist", "homophobic", and "racist", respectively.
Did that help clear things up? If not, let me submit categorical proof with
another F. Ewe quote:
"It's time to THINK BIG!!"
Bonus points if you can guess what artistically-inclined Austrian Chancellor
to Germany made that comment when he took leadership of the Nazi Party in
1938. Lest We Forget.
Santa.
SantaSat*n
>
> social programs. The right is right. We must cut the debt and cut it to
> nothing. What we need to do is to take ownership of the countries vast
> resources and instead of allowing this wealth to be appropriated by the
> rich, this wealth should be used to feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and
> health care for those that need the above mentioned commodities.
>
> All needs should be provided universally.
>
Brought a tear to me eye, laddy. Now tell me...
1. To which local charitable organizations have YOU recently volunteered or
donated money to help "feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and health care
for those that need the above mentioned commodities"?
2. Since you, F. Ewe, Small Business, lesbian pornographers, pedophiles and
career welfare cases will likely be on the receiving end of these services,
who will be paying for them?
3. The Alliance is the ONLY national party that wants to "cut the debt and
cut it to nothing"... as fast as possible, while immediately restoring
health care and education funding. Since Alliance policy seems to coincide
with your aforementioned goals, you voted Alliance in this past election,
right?
Santa.
Honest John
>It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
>care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
>the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>
>We need free health care.
>
>We need free prescription drugs.
>
>We need free eye care.
>
>We need free dental care.
>
>We need free home care.
>
>We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
>
>In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
In short you want everything free. No doubt you also believe that
money grows on trees and that the tooth fairy is out there somewhere.
Someone, somewhere has to pay for the things that you demand for free.
Isn't it about time you started supporting yourself and not demanding
that the taxpayer give you everything you want for free?
SantaSat*n
>
>
> Any other questions?
I have a few. At what rate do you think wealth should be taxed? What rate is
sufficient to pay for these social programs? Will varying income earners be
taxed at different percentage rates? What will happen when the hard-working
people leave, and this nation is populated by pedophiles and lesbian
pornographers with their hands out for more grants?
So far, your plan to implement this Great Canadian Socialist Utopia amounts
to me tutoring a chess player to "take the king". Do you have any figures or
plans to demonstrate HOW you will actually accomplish it?
Santa.
Honest John
>We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
Now anyone can put out a shingle saying they are a naturopath,
homeopath, native healing counsellor etc. Will these people all be
required to provide their services for free they way you will be
requiring the doctors, nurses, dentist etc to work for free? If you do
those "alternative care" (quack) providers will be leaving the
country along with the unpaid doctors, nurses etc. Mind you that
wouldn't be entirely a bad thing.
SantaSat*n
> could show/lead the way.
Who's paying for it, again? The programs you are suggesting will cost around
$40B per year. Where will that money come from? Certainly not from YOUR
wallet, right?
> Or are you one of those who thinks Canada should always follow?
"It's time to THINK BIG!!"... is it mere coincidence that you quote Hitler,
or is there something we should know about where your plan to "lead the way"
will take us?
Santa.
Honest John
>Health care workers are not "state slaves."
Doctors are, they are forced to work for OHIP if they want to practice
their craft.
Honest John
>"F. A." <zzz...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> Define "free"
>
>No cost at point of service.
>
>> Define how "free" will be paid for
>
>It will be paid for by taxing wealth.
So when the wealthy have left and the wealth is gone who will pay for
it then?
Honest John
>Canadians deserve free, total health care.
And free food, and free housing, and free..., and free...
Small Business
>What will happen when the hard-working
>people leave, and this nation is populated by pedophiles and lesbian
>pornographers with their hands out for more grants?
>
You call us lemmings?
>Santa.
>
>
Small Business
>> I don't think it does. That's why Canada, with our immense wealth,
>> could show/lead the way.
>
>Who's paying for it, again? The programs you are suggesting will cost around
>$40B per year. Where will that money come from? Certainly not from YOUR
>wallet, right?
>
You, being a complete lunatic, certainly don't even represent the
Alliance perspective. It is "JUSTICE" to support the poor. Poor people
have a right to share the wealth of this land and shouldn't have their
rights stolen by the Alliance.
Isaiah 3:14, "The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of
his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the
vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses."
Psalms 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them
be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
Psalms 10:8 He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the
secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set
against the poor.
>Santa.
RES
>
> It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
> care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
> the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>
> We need free health care.
>
> We need free prescription drugs.
>
> We need free eye care.
>
> We need free dental care.
>
> We need free home care.
>
>
>
> it - and an extension of health care won't be easy. But history shows
> us that without a fight, we don't get anything.
>
> Once we have total, free, health care, we should move on to free post-
> secondary education for all who qualify, total protection of the
> environment, and to guarantee some form of shelter for all citizens.
>
> reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of democratic
> socialism.
>
>
> I'm always willing to show the rich how to spend their money.
>
> Before you buy.
I understand the sentiment here. But it's not about having 'free'
anything.
Health care costs money.
Publicly funded universal health care is simply a more efficient
delivery system for this service. (See Total Health Care Spending as a
portion of GNP) It allows Canadians to be more effectively covered,
accessing services as a basic 'right' and not dependent on one's
financial resources. A social good, if you will.
By spending our dollars more efficiently, Canadians can have an economy
where other moneys are spent on other things - like housing - like
defence(cost guards, peacekeeping), etc. Moreover, it enables our
economy to operate more efficiently - it's important for our economy to
have healthy people being productive, contributing to our overall
wealth.
Having said this, it is also the 'responsibility' of Canadians to take
greater personal control over their health.
Governments have failed miserably on this last 'preventative' aspect of
health; many of the vested economic interests in the health care system
rely on sickness for their profits.
As soon as a political party is successful in advocating this raison
d'être for universal publicly funded health care the sooner the system
will be reasonably restored.
However, I don't see any political party, including the founders of
universal medicare, the NDP, coming to grips with the Day of Reckoning;
our aging population is succumbing to an epidemic of chronic
degenerative disease (+80% of North Americans now living will die
of/with a chronic degenerative disease (Heart disease, cancer, stroke,
diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, and Alzheimer's: Source:
CDC-Statistics Division: Atlanta [National Centre for the Prevention of
Chronic Disease]) (It was +70% in 1998). 80% of provincial health care
budgets are spent on patients with these conditions.
Canadians are understandably suspicious of 'free' anything, knowing full
well it's their hard earned tax dollars that are being spent.
Either Canadians will realize that spending it in this way (yes,
"government spending their money for them" for all its pejorative
connotations) will improve greatly the quality of life for the vast
majority of Canadians, or they will lose the system many value so
highly, including myself.
And the political points will be justly awarded to the political party
able to articulate this, and manage it.
Nobody wants anything 'free', because they know it doesn't make sense.
What they want is 'bang for their buck' and everyone covered.
RES
Small Business
>> > It's time to THINK BIG!!
>>
>> Right on. And I would add, we need to develop new ways to fund universal
>> social programs. The right is right. We must cut the debt and cut it to
>> nothing. What we need to do is to take ownership of the countries vast
>> resources and instead of allowing this wealth to be appropriated by the
>> rich, this wealth should be used to feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and
>> health care for those that need the above mentioned commodities.
>>
>> All needs should be provided universally.
>>
>> Archie
>
>Brought a tear to me eye, laddy. Now tell me...
>
>1. To which local charitable organizations have YOU recently volunteered or
>donated money to help "feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and health care
>for those that need the above mentioned commodities"?
I do regularly give to charity.
>
>2. Since you, F. Ewe, Small Business, lesbian pornographers, pedophiles and
>career welfare cases will likely be on the receiving end of these services,
>who will be paying for them?
>
You seem to have a classification for everyone.
>3. The Alliance is the ONLY national party that wants to "cut the debt and
>cut it to nothing"... as fast as possible,
The Liberals have reduced the debt already!!!
>while immediately restoring
>health care and education funding. Since Alliance policy seems to coincide
>with your aforementioned goals, you voted Alliance in this past election,
>right?
The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
funding.
>Santa.
You always leave out the Satan part of your nick name.
RES
Isn't this a monopoly power granted to the College of Physicians and
Surgeons in exchange for bargaining authority? Hoping someone can
confirm.
RES
Chris Delanoy
news:90e454$c11$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> We need free health care.
Provided by whom?
> We need free prescription drugs.
Provided by whom?
> We need free eye care.
Provided by whom?
> We need free dental care.
Provided by whom?
> We need free home care.
Provided by whom?
> We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
Provided by whom?
> In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
Provided by whom? Who will be paying for all this "free" healthcare?
> It's time to THINK BIG!!
Then try it sometime. Because right now you're so far outside of reality
that I wonder if your brain is functioning at all.
Chris Delanoy
SantaSat*n
Thanks for avoiding the question. Now, let's try that again:
I have a few. At what rate do you think wealth should be taxed? What rate is
sufficient to pay for these social programs? Will varying income earners be
taxed at different percentage rates? What will happen when the hard-working
people leave, and this nation is populated by pedophiles and lesbian
pornographers with their hands out for more grants?
So far, your plan to implement this Great Canadian Socialist Utopia amounts
Valentine Michael Smith
Ya get what ya pay for, and if something is advertised as free then
......
>It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
>care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
>the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>
>We need free health care.
>
>We need free prescription drugs.
>
>We need free eye care.
>
>We need free dental care.
>
>We need free home care.
>
>We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
>
>In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
>
>We didn't get medicare without a fight - doctors went on strike against
>it - and an extension of health care won't be easy. But history shows
>us that without a fight, we don't get anything.
>
>Once we have total, free, health care, we should move on to free post-
>secondary education for all who qualify, total protection of the
>environment, and to guarantee some form of shelter for all citizens.
>
>We live in a prosperous, wealthy, part of the world and there is no
>reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of democratic
>socialism.
>
>It's time to THINK BIG!!
>
>F. Yew
>I'm always willing to show the rich how to spend their money.
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
**********************
n' keep it in yur mind and not ferget
that it is not he or she or them or it
that you belong to
Robert Zimmerman
Chris Delanoy
> > better think about that again. do you really want to turn all those
> > health care workers into state slaves with the added responsibility to
> > work after health care hours to get food, clothing, and shelter? with
> > those prospect i can easily imagine that recruiting new health care
> > workers might turn into a problem
> Health care workers are not "state slaves."
Really? Are they permitted to practice their choosen professions for an
employer besides the state?
Chris Delanoy
Chris Delanoy
news:3A2ABA7D...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> All needs should be provided universally.
I need a new stereo receiver. If you'd like to get head start on personally
providing the rest of us with our needs, I'll give you my address so you can
send me one.
Chris Delanoy
-----
"Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Hartmann Schaffer
>"F. A." <zzz...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>world,
>> where this free, total, health care system exists.
>
>could show/lead the way.
>
well, if it's something good, it would be good if canada took the
lead. but trying to lead to achieve something that is impossible
would be stupid.
the point that you seem to forget that everything that involves effort
and consumption costs something. you can discuss how to calculate the
costs (dinosaurs and greens will have substantial differences here)
and what models to use to carry the cost, but simply declaring it is
free does not reflect reality.
hs
Hartmann Schaffer
> ...
>Health care workers are not "state slaves."
no, but the only way to implement your proposal (free ... in health
care) is to make them (and this includes everybody, including the
producers of medication, people who transport them etc), otherwise
they have to be remunerated for their efforts, so it can't be free
hs
Hartmann Schaffer
Honest John <h...@taxpayers.ca> wrote:
> ...
>Doctors are, they are forced to work for OHIP if they want to practice
>their craft.
afaik, doctors are free to start their private practices where they
see only private patients. they can't do any billing to OHIP then,
though.
hs
Small Business
>I understand the sentiment here. But it's not about having 'free'
>anything.
I think that goes without saying.
>
>Health care costs money.
>
>Publicly funded universal health care is simply a more efficient
>delivery system for this service.
I think most would see it as a way of ensuring that all people,
regardless of income level, receive adequate healthcare.
>(See Total Health Care Spending as a
>portion of GNP) It allows Canadians to be more effectively covered,
>accessing services as a basic 'right' and not dependent on one's
>financial resources. A social good, if you will.
>
>By spending our dollars more efficiently, Canadians can have an economy
>where other moneys are spent on other things - like housing - like
>defence(cost guards, peacekeeping), etc.
We have all of these things, and it isn't because of an efficient
health care system.
>Moreover, it enables our
>economy to operate more efficiently - it's important for our economy to
>have healthy people being productive, contributing to our overall
>wealth.
>
I think we can safely assume that there should be enough healthy
people to keep the economy alive. Your statement is rather
non-sequitur. Even without healthcare there would be enough healthy
people to carry the system. Healthcare is a matter of votes.
>Having said this, it is also the 'responsibility' of Canadians to take
>greater personal control over their health.
>
You seem to think that it is the individuals fault for premature bad
health. In case you have haven't noticed, we have a thick smog hanging
over Toronto. This being only one the literally millions of reasons
why people;die a death earlier than life expectancy.
>Governments have failed miserably on this last 'preventative' aspect of
>health; many of the vested economic interests in the health care system
>rely on sickness for their profits.
>
You accuse the government for not using preventative measures yet the
corporations are polluting and charging excessive prices on drugs.
I'm not saying that the governments don't share blame but
your failure to mention this seems odd.
>As soon as a political party is successful in advocating this raison
>d'être for universal publicly funded health care the sooner the system
>will be reasonably restored.
>
>However, I don't see any political party, including the founders of
>universal medicare, the NDP, coming to grips with the Day of Reckoning;
>our aging population is succumbing to an epidemic of chronic
>degenerative disease (+80% of North Americans now living will die
>of/with a chronic degenerative disease (Heart disease, cancer, stroke,
>diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, and Alzheimer's: Source:
>CDC-Statistics Division: Atlanta [National Centre for the Prevention of
>Chronic Disease]) (It was +70% in 1998). 80% of provincial health care
>budgets are spent on patients with these conditions.
>
Yes, there is a problem with finding the money of a an aging
population. One way to greatly help the problem would be to kick the
WTO out of our system thus vastly reducing the costs of drugs. Another
"preventative measure would be to clean the environment up. Mike
Harris has damaged the environment more than any other politician with
his massive cuts to environmental controls. No system is perfect and
we have to make due. We need to cut medicare in extremely expensive
areas because we simply can't afford it. The boomers put us in debt so
we should assume that they have saved some of that money for
retirement. It is a sad fact but that generation is headed for some
tough times. They certainly lived well in the good times!!! Hopefully,
we will be able to reasonably support the medicare system through
their old age. Obviously it will be far from perfect.
>Canadians are understandably suspicious of 'free' anything, knowing full
>well it's their hard earned tax dollars that are being spent.
>
No, tax dollars are still very low on the voter list of political
priorities, even though the Alliance has been hammering this issue for
the last ten years.
>Either Canadians will realize that spending it in this way (yes,
>"government spending their money for them" for all its pejorative
>connotations) will improve greatly the quality of life for the vast
>majority of Canadians, or they will lose the system many value so
>highly, including myself.
>
That's awfully black and white of you. :) Where did you acquire
this knowledge? :]
>And the political points will be justly awarded to the political party
>able to articulate this, and manage it.
It has its selling points but hard cold cash is what counts.
>
>Nobody wants anything 'free', because they know it doesn't make sense.
>What they want is 'bang for their buck' and everyone covered.
We need to vastly change are corporate controlled system then.
>
>RES
Small Business
>> You call us lemmings?
>
>Thanks for avoiding the question. Now, let's try that again:
>
1. I didn't avoid any questions because you were replying to another
poster. You are too stupid to even realize this.
2. Your artistic snippage of the posts is quite revealing. You are a
forger and a con for this snippage.
3. You have snipped your lunatic post;
Satan wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>What will happen when the hard-working
>people leave, and this nation is populated by pedophiles and lesbian
>pornographers with their hands out for more grants?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< SNIP - MY TURN >
SantaSat*n
around
> >$40B per year. Where will that money come from? Certainly not from YOUR
> >wallet, right?
> >
>
> You, being a complete lunatic, certainly don't even represent the
> Alliance perspective. It is "JUSTICE" to support the poor. Poor people
> have a right to share the wealth of this land and shouldn't have their
> rights stolen by the Alliance.
Lunatic? Listen, sweetie-pie. I donate $50/mo to the Salvation Army because
those people work f*cking hard and do a DAMN GOOD job with my money - far
better than any Liberal stooge will ever do. I support hard work and ethical
business, and strong communities that attack homelessness and poverty
head-on. What I will NOT support are my taxes feeding Chretien's Shawinigan
hotel sales and Shiela Copps' lesbian pornographers, gay pride parades and
similar "culture", while their Liberal government throws the genuine sick
and poor into the streets via health care and EI cuts. It is JUSTICE to
support the GENUINE poor, as the Alliance will do with restored health
care/education funding and a tax/exemption system that will remove >1M
Canadians from the tax roles. But stealing from the sick and poor to fund
lesbian pornography... that is YOUR idea of justice, NOT mine.
> Isaiah 3:14, "The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of
> his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the
> vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses."
You and F. Ewe brand the Alliance as a party of "religious nuts, racists and
bigots", and then quote the Bible to suit your Liberal agenda?
Aaaaahahahahaha! Could the finest blithering hypocrite please step forward?
> Psalms 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them
> be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
Let's review that: "The WICKED in his pride doth persecute the poor".
Perhaps to you and your grant-collecting friends, ALL businesspeople in
Canada (actually anyone who's worked harder than you to make a living for
themselves) is "wicked". Any sane person knows the vast majority of Canadian
business owners, especially small business owners, are honest and generous
people, and have a genuine concern for the individual and collective needs
of their employees.
> Psalms 10:8 He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the
> secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set
> against the poor.
It's been years since I attended church, and so I'm not familiar with either
passage from Psalms. However, the Isaiah 3:14 passage refers to a wealthy
lord who has consumed the labour of his empoverished workers and has
effectively left them to rot in a time of widespread lepracy. Interesting.
How many corporations or wealthy individuals in Canada would fit that
analogy, as a percentage of total employment? 5%? 10%? I'm willing to bet
most HRDC grant recipients would fit, because that fund steals DIRECTLY from
transfer payments to health care and education, effectively screwing the
sick and poor. Count me OUT of that kind of "justice".
I laugh at how you Liberals call for some noble crusade for "justice for the
poor", citing "evil business" and the "wicked"... when in all likelihood I
contribute more time and money to charitable causes than you do. Why can't
you and your grant collecting artsie fiends admit it... you don't give two
sh*ts about the poor, and you never have. You just want your hands on more
assistance. You are nothing more than a prostitute, and a cowardly one at
that.
Santa.
SantaSat*n
>
> And free food, and free housing, and free..., and free...
Honest John, how DARE you deny Canadians of their "right" to free education,
free hamburgers, free carpet cleaning, free pornographic video rentals and
other necessities of life. You are committing a grave injustice to the
"poor". You are a rich, racist, intolerant, homophobic, selfish bigot. Now
shut up and pay for my research on the history of Vancouver exotic dancers,
as is your duty as a "just" and "kind" Canadian citizen.
Bloody insane, isn't it? ;)
Santa.
Wes Moxam
>
> It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
> care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
> the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>
> We need free health care.
>
> We need free prescription drugs.
>
> We need free eye care.
>
> We need free dental care.
>
> We need free home care.
>
> We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
>
> In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
>
> We didn't get medicare without a fight - doctors went on strike against
> it - and an extension of health care won't be easy. But history shows
> us that without a fight, we don't get anything.
>
> Once we have total, free, health care, we should move on to free post-
> secondary education for all who qualify, total protection of the
> environment, and to guarantee some form of shelter for all citizens.
>
> We live in a prosperous, wealthy, part of the world and there is no
> reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of democratic
> socialism.
>
> It's time to THINK BIG!!
Haven't you learned that NOTHING is free?
Rather than monopolizing social services the government should move to allow
Canadians to make their own choices.
I want to see:
- private health clinics available to those who want premium service
- private universities (coming soon to Ontario) so that students don't have to
go to
the United States for a premium university experience.
Note that private services do not necessarily take away from the public
services, they just offer a greater choice then what the government can offer.
--------------------------------
| Wes Moxam |
| wmo...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
| http://www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
|______________________________|
SantaSat*n
or
> >donated money to help "feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and health care
> >for those that need the above mentioned commodities"?
>
> I do regularly give to charity.
And those would be...?
> >2. Since you, F. Ewe, Small Business, lesbian pornographers, pedophiles
and
> >career welfare cases will likely be on the receiving end of these
services,
> >who will be paying for them?
> >
>
> You seem to have a classification for everyone.
A classification for lesbian pornographers, pedophiles and able-bodied
career welfare cases? You bet. I classify them in my "people NOT to EVER
meet or waste time or money on" file.
> >3. The Alliance is the ONLY national party that wants to "cut the debt
and
> >cut it to nothing"... as fast as possible,
>
> The Liberals have reduced the debt already!!!
Here we go again. Try to understand, hard as it may be: Our debt has
INCREASED from 1993 when our lowered dollar is accounted for. As for paying
off the remaining debt, the current Liberal plan will take between 125 to
188 years. We are paying what, $.42 on every tax dollar toward the debt?
Don't you see a problem with that? The Alliance tax reduction and debt
repayment plans will reduce our debt repayment to 25-40 years.
> The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
Higher than what? Their LOWEST funding level? LOL. Even WITHOUT accounting
for inflation, the new Liberal mini-budget won't restore funding to 1993
levels.
> Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
> government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
> funding.
The Alliance wants to cut education funding? Do you have a link to this, or
shall we chalk up another demonstation of SB's special brand of reality?
> >Santa.
>
> You always leave out the Satan part of your nick name.
Honey, I've repeatedly shown you gross Liberal breaches of public trust,
corruption and misappropriation of public funds. After all that, if all you
can leverage against me is my oxymoronical nickname, maybe you should
rethink your position here and apply for the Little-League Debate Club at
AOL.
SantaSatan.
SantaSat*n
personally
> providing the rest of us with our needs, I'll give you my address so you
can
> send me one.
I "need" a new $5000 In-Focus(tm) MMD projector to screen my newest lesbian
pornographic video, titled "Bubbles Galore". Do you think I deserve it?
Shiela Copps did. And we re-elected her. So pay up, or I will expose you for
the "homophobic bigot" you are.
;)
Santa.
Small Business
>> >Who's paying for it, again? The programs you are suggesting will cost
>around
>> >$40B per year. Where will that money come from? Certainly not from YOUR
>> >wallet, right?
>> >
>>
>> You, being a complete lunatic, certainly don't even represent the
>> Alliance perspective. It is "JUSTICE" to support the poor. Poor people
>> have a right to share the wealth of this land and shouldn't have their
>> rights stolen by the Alliance.
>
>Lunatic? Listen, sweetie-pie. I donate $50/mo to the Salvation Army because
>those people work f*cking hard and do a DAMN GOOD job with my money
People must wonder about a guy who tells everybody about his charity!
>- far
>better than any Liberal stooge will ever do.
Liberals never give to charity? Are you out of your nit picking mind.
Knock, knock....helllllooooo....anybody home?
>I support hard work and ethical
>business, and strong communities that attack homelessness and poverty
>head-on.
You being a self righteous lunatic, think that you can spew your
twisted lies and logic because you give to charity?
>What I will NOT support are my taxes feeding Chretien's Shawinigan
>hotel sales and Shiela Copps' lesbian pornographers, gay pride parades and
>similar "culture", while their Liberal government throws the genuine sick
>and poor into the streets via health care and EI cuts.
Do you ever stop to breathe? Talk about a long winded sentence. You
are full of them. They keep getting repeated over and over. There are
rules about this in usenet you know?
The Canadian voters disagree with your views on how are tax dollars
are being spent as witnessed in our last election.
>It is JUSTICE to
>support the GENUINE poor, as the Alliance will do with restored health
>care/education funding and a tax/exemption system that will remove >1M
>Canadians from the tax roles. But stealing from the sick and poor to fund
>lesbian pornography... that is YOUR idea of justice, NOT mine.
>
>> Isaiah 3:14, "The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of
>> his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the
>> vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses."
>
>You and F. Ewe brand the Alliance as a party of "religious nuts, racists and
>bigots", and then quote the Bible to suit your Liberal agenda?
>Aaaaahahahahaha! Could the finest blithering hypocrite please step forward?
>
Helping the poor is quoting the Bible to suit my Liberal agenda?
You keep tripping over your own feet. The pharisees were the high
priests of their Jewish faith but Jesus condemned them as vipers!
>> Psalms 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them
>> be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
>
>Let's review that: "The WICKED in his pride doth persecute the poor".
>Perhaps to you and your grant-collecting friends, ALL businesspeople in
>Canada (actually anyone who's worked harder than you to make a living for
>themselves) is "wicked".
We saw how you prided yourself above in your charity. Good people find
satisfaction in giving without bragging about it. You certainly have
won the prize for non-sequitur.
> Any sane person knows the vast majority of Canadian
>business owners, especially small business owners, are honest and generous
>people, and have a genuine concern for the individual and collective needs
>of their employees.
>
Then why has minimum wage been stuck at dirt low amounts for years?
>> Psalms 10:8 He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the
>> secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set
>> against the poor.
>
>It's been years since I attended church, and so I'm not familiar with either
>passage from Psalms. However, the Isaiah 3:14 passage refers to a wealthy
>lord who has consumed the labour of his empoverished workers and has
>effectively left them to rot in a time of widespread lepracy.
Why you connect leprosy with this particular passage is really not
known. Leprosy has been a consistent plague for thousands of years yet
you specifically draw a connection to it here? I checked my
electronic Bible and the word is not even mentioned in the book of
Isiaah! Here is another passage form the same paragraph that relates
to the same idea and clearly shows what it being said. Basically, the
whole paragraph condemns sinful people.
Isaiah 3:5, "And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another,
and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly
against the ancient, and the base against the honourable."
Isaiah 3:15, "What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind
the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts."
My Bible Commentary says that the elders and the princess were
responsible for the people but instead stole from the poor. This
paragraph is about oppression.
>Interesting.
>How many corporations or wealthy individuals in Canada would fit that
>analogy, as a percentage of total employment? 5%? 10%? I'm willing to bet
>most HRDC grant recipients would fit, because that fund steals DIRECTLY from
>transfer payments to health care and education, effectively screwing the
>sick and poor. Count me OUT of that kind of "justice".
>
The sick and poor can also receive grants. If the Alliance was in
power there would be no grants.
>I laugh at how you Liberals call for some noble crusade for "justice for the
>poor", citing "evil business" and the "wicked"... when in all likelihood I
>contribute more time and money to charitable causes than you do.
You are the only person who brags about giving to charity. You have
done it three times in one post!!!
>Why can't
>you and your grant collecting artsie fiends admit it...
Bigot and ignorant nit. Something wrong with intellectually
imaginative?
>you don't give two
>sh*ts about the poor, and you never have. You just want your hands on more
>assistance. You are nothing more than a prostitute, and a cowardly one at
>that.
>
I assume you have proof to back your slander?
>Santa.
Don't forget the Satan part of your nickname. Why it is there is a
real mystery.
Small Business
>> >1. To which local charitable organizations have YOU recently volunteered
>or
>> >donated money to help "feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and health care
>> >for those that need the above mentioned commodities"?
>>
>> I do regularly give to charity.
>
>And those would be...?
>
You ask me these stupid personal questions even though you accuse me
of not answering? You being a typical right-wing goon continually
bring honest political debating down to a personal level of attack. My
charity is personal and don't need to brag about it like you do in
other posts.
>> >2. Since you, F. Ewe, Small Business, lesbian pornographers, pedophiles
>and
>> >career welfare cases will likely be on the receiving end of these
>services,
>> >who will be paying for them?
>> >
>>
>> You seem to have a classification for everyone.
>
>A classification for lesbian pornographers, pedophiles and able-bodied
>career welfare cases? You bet. I classify them in my "people NOT to EVER
>meet or waste time or money on" file.
>
All this people are very sick and should be dealt with accordingly.
However, it doesn't give you the right to be their judge, jury and
executioner. I have a big problem with you lumping welfare people in
with pedophiles. You are one sick puppy.
>> >3. The Alliance is the ONLY national party that wants to "cut the debt
>and
>> >cut it to nothing"... as fast as possible,
>>
>> The Liberals have reduced the debt already!!!
>
>Here we go again. Try to understand, hard as it may be: Our debt has
>INCREASED from 1993 when our lowered dollar is accounted for.
No, the amount of debt will be the same no matter what value our
dollar is at. You are a liar and twist the truth SATAN. You try to
weasel out of your stupidity.
>As for paying
>off the remaining debt, the current Liberal plan will take between 125 to
>188 years.
At least we started paying it down! You got your figures by being a
puppet of Stockwell Day. Every time we knock the debt down we pay less
interest on it and have even more to spend on further debt reduction.
>We are paying what, $.42 on every tax dollar toward the debt?
That is about right if my memory serves me correctly.
>Don't you see a problem with that? The Alliance tax reduction and debt
>repayment plans will reduce our debt repayment to 25-40 years.
>
That I would like to see considering that the Alliance platform would
cost the most. This is one of the reasons why many people thought that
the Alliance had a hidden agenda.
>> The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
>
>Higher than what? Their LOWEST funding level? LOL. Even WITHOUT accounting
>for inflation, the new Liberal mini-budget won't restore funding to 1993
>levels.
>
This is again deceptive political propaganda. You use the art of the
accountant to fool the public. You have often been quoted as saying
that the Liberals have reduced health care funding even though it is
not true anymore. What I say is truth and what you say is deception
because you don't include the information about inflation in your
figures.
The Liberals aren't the only party to make cuts and the Harris
government, and the former federal Conservatives were experts at this.
We had to make cuts to remove the debt and the Canadian public were
obviously not unhappy with this as witnessed from the majority
government.
>> Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
>> government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
>> funding.
>
>The Alliance wants to cut education funding? Do you have a link to this, or
>shall we chalk up another demonstation of SB's special brand of reality?
>
>> >Santa.
>>
>> You always leave out the Satan part of your nick name.
>
>Honey, I've repeatedly shown you gross Liberal breaches of public trust,
>corruption and misappropriation of public funds. After all that, if all you
>can leverage against me is my oxymoronical nickname, maybe you should
>rethink your position here and apply for the Little-League Debate Club at
>AOL.
I love how you continually use this sexist and bigoted insults. You
have absolutely no credibility Iconlast.
>SantaSatan.
I see you haven't forgotten the SATAN part of your nick name this
time.
Honest John
>Honest John wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:23:14 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Health care workers are not "state slaves."
>>
>> Doctors are, they are forced to work for OHIP if they want to practice
>> their craft.
>
>Isn't this a monopoly power granted to the College of Physicians and
>Surgeons in exchange for bargaining authority? Hoping someone can
>confirm.
No, the College does not bargain. The OMA does that.
The rule is part of tha Canada health act that uniquely affects
physicians. Nurses, chiropractors, dentists, engineers, teachers
(indeed all other groups in the country) are free to work for whoever
they wish and charge whatever fees they can get. Under the Canada
Health Act and it's provincial equivalents, physicians fees are
limited to those the government sets. For a physician to even accept a
gift from a patient is illegal.
RES
>
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:32:01 GMT, RES <resc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Honest John wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:23:14 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Health care workers are not "state slaves."
> >>
> >> Doctors are, they are forced to work for OHIP if they want to practice
> >> their craft.
> >
> >Isn't this a monopoly power granted to the College of Physicians and
> >Surgeons in exchange for bargaining authority? Hoping someone can
> >confirm.
>
> No, the College does not bargain. The OMA does that.
Thanks. Don't have thinking cap on today. Of course the OMA is the
bargaining agent. RES
> The rule is part of tha Canada health act that uniquely affects
> physicians. Nurses, chiropractors, dentists, engineers, teachers
> (indeed all other groups in the country) are free to work for whoever
> they wish and charge whatever fees they can get. Under the Canada
> Health Act and it's provincial equivalents, physicians fees are
> limited to those the government sets. For a physician to even accept a
> gift from a patient is illegal.
--
Well, not 'illegal'. Just that the province pays a penalty for
'extra-billing'. Right? (Penalty of deducted $$ from fed transfers)
RES
SantaSat*n
> poster. You are too stupid to even realize this.
To my original post, you chimed in with "You call us lemmings?", which added
information zero to the argument at hand. I've come to expect such childish
remarks from you and F. Ewe.
> 2. Your artistic snippage of the posts is quite revealing. You are a
> forger and a con for this snippage.
Blah blah forger blah blah con blah blah snippage blah blah racist blah blah
bigot... what did I snip? I resubmitted my original post (the one to which
you replied "You call us lemmings", remember?) in full because it was easier
than restating an argument to which you presented no rebuttal. You will
answer my challenges as I've answered yours, directly and without
equivocation, or be exposed for the sad little kitten you are.
> 3. You have snipped your lunatic post;
What lunatic post were you referring to? The one where I scoffed pedophiles
and lesbian pornographers? Does that "bother" you? Do you find it
"intolerant"? Do you think I'm "uncultured"? Have I "oppressed" you? Fine
with me. Take your filth elsewhere; I will NOT be taxed to support your
socially-degenerate lifestyle when I can put my taxes toward real causes
that will genuinely benefit Canadians.
Now, unless you have something to add OTHER than "You call us lemmings",
let's try one more time:
---
I have a few. At what rate do you think wealth should be taxed? What rate is
sufficient to pay for these social programs? Will varying income earners be
taxed at different percentage rates? What will happen when the hard-working
people leave, and this nation is populated by pedophiles and lesbian
pornographers with their hands out for more grants?
So far, your plan to implement this Great Canadian Socialist Utopia amounts
to me tutoring a chess player to "take the king". Do you have any figures or
plans to demonstrate HOW you will actually accomplish it?
Santa.
Oops...
SantaSATAN.
Forgot how much that omission bothers you. Hahaha...
F. Yew
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:02:50 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"F. A." <zzz...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Define "free"
> >
> >No cost at point of service.
> >
> >> Define how "free" will be paid for
> >
> >It will be paid for by taxing wealth.
>
> So when the wealthy have left and the wealth is gone who will pay for
> it then?
Don't be a foolish naysayer. Some people argued that society couldn't
afford the 40 hour work week, couldn't afford public education, and
couldn't afford medicare. They were wrong and you are wrong.
Get with the new millennium and develop a vision that goes beyond your
petty concerns of having to pay tax. Get over it. And get a life
while you're at it.
F. Yew
F. Yew
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:23:14 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Health care workers are not "state slaves."
>
> Doctors are, they are forced to work for OHIP if they want to practice
> their craft.
And yet there's no shortage of applicants for med schools. I wonder
why? Could it be that they don't see themselves as "slaves?" Could
you be wrong - again?
F. Yew
Our children deserve free, total health care!
RES
I never argued that it did. I argue that there would be *more* money for
other things, not necessarily *government* moneys. Government isn't the
only institution that spends money. Individuals do. Corporations do.
Small business does. RES
> >Moreover, it enables our
> >economy to operate more efficiently - it's important for our economy to
> >have healthy people being productive, contributing to our overall
> >wealth.
> >
>
> I think we can safely assume that there should be enough healthy
> people to keep the economy alive. Your statement is rather
> non-sequitur. Even without healthcare there would be enough healthy
> people to carry the system. Healthcare is a matter of votes.
>
So people without access to health care are more healthy? Toyota locates
in Ontario instead of Ohio because they know it's not true. You
obviously disagree that people without access to quality healthcare are
less healthy and productive than people who do. RES
> >Having said this, it is also the 'responsibility' of Canadians to take
> >greater personal control over their health.
> >
>
> You seem to think that it is the individuals fault for premature bad
> health.
These diseases are lifestyle diseases and to a large degree can be
prevented. RES
In case you have haven't noticed, we have a thick smog hanging
> over Toronto. This being only one the literally millions of reasons
> why people;die a death earlier than life expectancy.
>
Companies and Governments can't do anything about smog. Kyoto Agreement
eviscerated by US and Canada. RES
> >Governments have failed miserably on this last 'preventative' aspect of
> >health; many of the vested economic interests in the health care system
> >rely on sickness for their profits.
> >
>
> You accuse the government for not using preventative measures yet the
> corporations are polluting and charging excessive prices on drugs.
> I'm not saying that the governments don't share blame but
> your failure to mention this seems odd.
>
You are missing my argument by a country mile. Government has much to be
blamed for. Governments are a shill for the insurance and pharmaceutical
transnationals. RES
> >As soon as a political party is successful in advocating this raison
> >d'être for universal publicly funded health care the sooner the system
> >will be reasonably restored.
> >
> >However, I don't see any political party, including the founders of
> >universal medicare, the NDP, coming to grips with the Day of Reckoning;
> >our aging population is succumbing to an epidemic of chronic
> >degenerative disease (+80% of North Americans now living will die
> >of/with a chronic degenerative disease (Heart disease, cancer, stroke,
> >diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, and Alzheimer's: Source:
> >CDC-Statistics Division: Atlanta [National Centre for the Prevention of
> >Chronic Disease]) (It was +70% in 1998). 80% of provincial health care
> >budgets are spent on patients with these conditions.
> >
>
> Yes, there is a problem with finding the money of a an aging
> population.
Aging *and* chronically sicker than many others. RES
One way to greatly help the problem would be to kick the
> WTO out of our system thus vastly reducing the costs of drugs. Another
> "preventative measure would be to clean the environment up. Mike
> Harris has damaged the environment more than any other politician with
> his massive cuts to environmental controls. No system is perfect and
> we have to make due. We need to cut medicare in extremely expensive
> areas because we simply can't afford it. The boomers put us in debt so
> we should assume that they have saved some of that money for
> retirement. It is a sad fact but that generation is headed for some
> tough times. They certainly lived well in the good times!!! Hopefully,
> we will be able to reasonably support the medicare system through
> their old age. Obviously it will be far from perfect.
>
Makes you wonder how the poorest province in Confederation started
Canada's first 'hospitalization' program. If we can't afford a
universal publicly funded health program fewer still will be able to
afford private care and those numbers will decrease substantially, at a
far greater pace than medicare. RES
> >Canadians are understandably suspicious of 'free' anything, knowing full
> >well it's their hard earned tax dollars that are being spent.
> >
>
> No, tax dollars are still very low on the voter list of political
> priorities, even though the Alliance has been hammering this issue for
> the last ten years.
>
Seems pretty high to me given the Martin Budget gave massive tax breaks
to wealthier Canadians and Corporations. The CA didn't even peep the
next day at Question period. their budget was delivered by the Liberals
and the Liberals have 173 seats and a Majority Government. RES
> >Either Canadians will realize that spending it in this way (yes,
> >"government spending their money for them" for all its pejorative
> >connotations) will improve greatly the quality of life for the vast
> >majority of Canadians, or they will lose the system many value so
> >highly, including myself.
> >
>
> That's awfully black and white of you. :) Where did you acquire
> this knowledge? :]
>
I don't know how you can characterize my points as either black or
white. the medicare and health care situation is a complex one; factors
including taxation. ability to pay, aging populations and increase in
health costs beyond simple aging - an epidemic of chronic degenerative
diseases that aging populations have never before experienced. RES
> >And the political points will be justly awarded to the political party
> >able to articulate this, and manage it.
>
> It has its selling points but hard cold cash is what counts.
>
And thats my argument. Cold hard cash. productivity. Investment. Quality
of Life. Plus covering everyone which I would argue is a 'social
benefit'. RES
> >
> >Nobody wants anything 'free', because they know it doesn't make sense.
> >What they want is 'bang for their buck' and everyone covered.
>
> We need to vastly change are corporate controlled system then.
>
> >
> >RES
I use a different terminology. We have a 'sickness' driven system and
governments have not come to terms with it. RES
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
Honest John
>> The rule is part of tha Canada health act that uniquely affects
>> physicians. Nurses, chiropractors, dentists, engineers, teachers
>> (indeed all other groups in the country) are free to work for whoever
>> they wish and charge whatever fees they can get. Under the Canada
>> Health Act and it's provincial equivalents, physicians fees are
>> limited to those the government sets. For a physician to even accept a
>> gift from a patient is illegal.
>
>--
>
>Well, not 'illegal'. Just that the province pays a penalty for
>'extra-billing'. Right? (Penalty of deducted $$ from fed transfers)
Yes it is illegal, the physician faces a fine and loss of his/her
licence. The Federal law penalizes the provinces if they allow it (as
you point out) but the provinces prevent it, and thus avoid that
penalty, by making it illegal. This kind of regulation applies to no
other group in the country and is almost unique to Canada.
Honest John
>h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:23:14 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Health care workers are not "state slaves."
>>
>> Doctors are, they are forced to work for OHIP if they want to practice
>> their craft.
>
>And yet there's no shortage of applicants for med schools. I wonder
>why? Could it be that they don't see themselves as "slaves?" Could
>you be wrong - again?
We all have to eat. Could it be that many of the applicants plan to
move south to a free country. We loose the equivalent of the
graduating classes from several medical schools every year.
Honest John
>Get with the new millennium and develop a vision that goes beyond your
>petty concerns of having to pay tax. Get over it. And get a life
>while you're at it.
I would have more of a life, and so would my wife and children, if I
didn't loose well over half my income to the tax man.
F. A.
Your answers are a little too simplistic, define wealth.
"F. Yew" wrote:
> "F. A." <zzz...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> > Define "free"
>
> No cost at point of service.
>
> > Define how "free" will be paid for
>
> It will be paid for by taxing wealth.
>
> Any other questions?
>
> F. Yew
> It's time for the "left" to set the political agenda again.
F. A.
Once again, you're clear things up for me, they sure are scary aren't
they. If they had their way, they would empty out my accounts and sell all my
assets to fund their socialist endeavours....
Francois
SantaSat*n wrote:
> > Define "free"
> > Define how "free" will be paid for
>
> F.A., you can answer this question yourself by connecting the dots between
> F. Ewe's statements:
>
> "...there is no reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of
> democratic socialism... (later) I'm always willing to show the rich how to
> spend their money."
>
> See, F. Yew's socialism goes like this: Anyone wealthier than F. Yew and
> Small Business are considered "rich". With that definition in mind, all
> "rich" people gained their wealth through greed and luck. They are scum, and
> do not deserve the rights of F. Yew, Small Business, career welfare
> "victims", pedophiles, lesbian pornographic filmmakers, illegal immigrants
> and ex-con Shawinigan hotel owners. As such, "Rich" people are OBLIGATED to
> pay for social programs that allow F. Yew, Small Business, career welfare
> "victims", pedophiles, lesbian pornographic filmmakers, illegal immigrants
> and ex-con Shawinigan hotel owners the same standard of living as them. This
> is fair, because "rich" people (remember my above definition) are scum.
> Furthermore, "rich" people should accept this fate and be quiet (read:
> socialist police state). They have no right to call for tax reform, justice
> reform, social reform, or immigration reform, as that would be "selfish",
> "fascist", "homophobic", and "racist", respectively.
>
> Did that help clear things up? If not, let me submit categorical proof with
> another F. Ewe quote:
>
> "It's time to THINK BIG!!"
>
> Bonus points if you can guess what artistically-inclined Austrian Chancellor
> to Germany made that comment when he took leadership of the Nazi Party in
> 1938. Lest We Forget.
>
> Santa.
F. A.
Are you completely fucking stoned?! or just a complete moron?!
Look at what you just stated... "The national debt costs us money. A
deficit costs us even more. So,
it makes sense to eliminate both and stop paying interest to the
wealthy."
What the hell do you really mean? How the hell do you think the
national debt started? (Answer: Trudeau; Mulroney and Chretien). You
sound like someone in 1st year university or 12 grade high school at
best, just trying to sound "educated", fuck are you ever thick! Thick as
a plank on the floor...
"F. Yew" wrote:
> aken...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > > It's time to THINK BIG!!
> >
> > Right on. And I would add, we need to develop new ways to fund
> universal
> > social programs. The right is right. We must cut the debt and cut
> it to
> > nothing. What we need to do is to take ownership of the countries
> vast
> > resources and instead of allowing this wealth to be appropriated by
> the
> > rich, this wealth should be used to feed, clothe, house, provide
> drugs and
> > health care for those that need the above mentioned commodities.
> >
> > All needs should be provided universally.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> The national debt costs us money. A deficit costs us even more. So,
> it makes sense to eliminate both and stop paying interest to the
> wealthy. Tommy Douglas understood this very well.
>
> If the NDP fought for total, free, health care, people would have a
> reason to vote for them again. As it is today, the NDP is only
> fighting to keep what we have and, politically, that's not very sexy
> and doesn't turn on the voting public. Needless to say, I agree we
> have to keep what we have but we must expand it greatly.
>
> Canadians deserve free, total health care.
>
> F. Yew
gseiber...@sentex.net
disturbed.
Cheers
Gary
Small Business
I'm not quite sure we disagree about anything here. I just took
exception to your rather basic posting . No offence taken please.
I can understand why you would post this way.
>
>> >Moreover, it enables our
>> >economy to operate more efficiently - it's important for our economy to
>> >have healthy people being productive, contributing to our overall
>> >wealth.
>> >
>>
>> I think we can safely assume that there should be enough healthy
>> people to keep the economy alive. Your statement is rather
>> non-sequitur. Even without healthcare there would be enough healthy
>> people to carry the system. Healthcare is a matter of votes.
>>
>
>So people without access to health care are more healthy? Toyota locates
>in Ontario instead of Ohio because they know it's not true. You
>obviously disagree that people without access to quality healthcare are
>less healthy and productive than people who do. RES
>
I never said that. I'm just stating that nations can do reasonably
well without health care. I'm not trying to promote the destruction of
health care either!
>> >Having said this, it is also the 'responsibility' of Canadians to take
>> >greater personal control over their health.
>> >
>>
>> You seem to think that it is the individuals fault for premature bad
>> health.
>
>These diseases are lifestyle diseases and to a large degree can be
>prevented. RES
>
That is a matter of optics. You can't tell me that the average
Canadian food sources aren't promoted by corporations.
Mcdonalds is a corporate invention. I believe that far more
damage is done by society to the individual than the individual does
to themselves. Every bad form of food is promoted by society.
The air we breathe is contaminated far more than the average
Canadian realizes and it has profound effect on our health.
Our water is also very contaminated. Our food is full of hormones
and other contaminates. We have poisoned our environment.
Our schools don't teach us what proper eating is. The television we
watch is depressing and full of negative thought which has profound
effect on our thinking that can harm health. I could easily write
a thesis on this. What you say is wholly mistaken.
>In case you have haven't noticed, we have a thick smog hanging
>> over Toronto. This being only one the literally millions of reasons
>> why people;die a death earlier than life expectancy.
>>
>
>Companies and Governments can't do anything about smog. Kyoto Agreement
>eviscerated by US and Canada. RES
>
Perhaps it is too late for all of us but the root of the problem is
corruption. If it wasn't for corruption we could change things.
>> >Governments have failed miserably on this last 'preventative' aspect of
>> >health; many of the vested economic interests in the health care system
>> >rely on sickness for their profits.
>> >
>>
>> You accuse the government for not using preventative measures yet the
>> corporations are polluting and charging excessive prices on drugs.
>> I'm not saying that the governments don't share blame but
>> your failure to mention this seems odd.
>>
>You are missing my argument by a country mile. Government has much to be
>blamed for. Governments are a shill for the insurance and pharmaceutical
>transnationals. RES
>
It is not as though the governments have much choice. They do have a
choice but it is a choice that comes with serious consequences. One
consequence would simply be a loss of public support. The psychology
of mob rule states the lowest common moral denominator will prevail.
This is not to say that society is a mob but society does hold this
theory to a similar degree. Nobody would be willing to forsake their
riches even if it means improving life in the long term.
International law holds us to certain conditions and breaking these
laws would mean trade sanctions. A good and intelligent government
that really cared for its people will slowly bring us to a position
where we could break these corporate bounds with little problems.
Although you may argue that governments haven't been doing this, I
would say that our current political dilemmas are relatively new
historically so government has yet to be fully tested. I have far more
hope in government than I do for corporations.
Those times when medicare first started were much better. I believe we
can stomach the health care problems, provided market forces remain
strong. One of the big problems is drug costs, as I stated before and
increases in technology costs. The MRI is extremely expensive
technology that simply didn't exist when medicare first started. There
are so many new technologies that are extremely expensive. Although
the MRI does save lives, it is a sad fact that some people won't be
able to afford it. Let's face it, there has never been a time when all
health care costs have been covered. Not everybody can get a heart
transplant.
>> >Canadians are understandably suspicious of 'free' anything, knowing full
>> >well it's their hard earned tax dollars that are being spent.
>> >
>>
>> No, tax dollars are still very low on the voter list of political
>> priorities, even though the Alliance has been hammering this issue for
>> the last ten years.
>>
>Seems pretty high to me given the Martin Budget gave massive tax breaks
>to wealthier Canadians and Corporations. The CA didn't even peep the
>next day at Question period. their budget was delivered by the Liberals
>and the Liberals have 173 seats and a Majority Government. RES
>
Here is where the Liberals and I part company somewhat. I support the
Liberals but i'm very much aware that Martin is rather right of
center. In all fairness though, breaking out of the corporate bounds
requires time, patience and perseverance. We do have tho strengthen
our economy and remove our debt before we attempt to shut out
corporations. We do have to keep the taxes low until we gain strength.
Call me overly optimistic. It is my opinion that the Alliance would be
far worse.
Tax breaks, as you know, are a corporate lobby. Although you generally
won't hear the public complain about lower taxes, it is the
corporations that want the tax breaks badly. I don't believe that the
Liberals would of fared much worse without the recent mini budget.
>> >Either Canadians will realize that spending it in this way (yes,
>> >"government spending their money for them" for all its pejorative
>> >connotations) will improve greatly the quality of life for the vast
>> >majority of Canadians, or they will lose the system many value so
>> >highly, including myself.
>> >
>>
>> That's awfully black and white of you. :) Where did you acquire
>> this knowledge? :]
>>
>I don't know how you can characterize my points as either black or
>white. the medicare and health care situation is a complex one; factors
>including taxation. ability to pay, aging populations and increase in
>health costs beyond simple aging - an epidemic of chronic degenerative
>diseases that aging populations have never before experienced. RES
>
I'm sorry. I develop an edge at times.
>> >And the political points will be justly awarded to the political party
>> >able to articulate this, and manage it.
>>
>> It has its selling points but hard cold cash is what counts.
>>
>
>And thats my argument. Cold hard cash. productivity. Investment. Quality
>of Life. Plus covering everyone which I would argue is a 'social
>benefit'. RES
We can only hope. I don't see much of it unfortunately. I see a death
knell over the stock market because the corporations have stolen money
from society and inflated the markets artificially with corporate
debt. The market can only grow as big as the economy can grow and then
will collapse like a balloon. The stock market crash of 1929 was
caused by a few people who had stolen from society to buy their homes
and furniture. They did it through speculation. The few people who
knew what was going on, and had money to buy stock, reaped the
benefits of the stock inflation. The rest of society will now suffer.
>> >
>> >Nobody wants anything 'free', because they know it doesn't make sense.
>> >What they want is 'bang for their buck' and everyone covered.
>>
>> We need to vastly change are corporate controlled system then.
>>
>> >
>> >RES
>
>I use a different terminology. We have a 'sickness' driven system and
>governments have not come to terms with it. RES
It seems we have more in common than we have differences. The stock
Market is simply a big gambling casino and an evil practice. It is no
wonder that crime drugs and alcoholism follows. Las Vegas has the
highest rate of suicide in the U.S. Untold millions of people have had
their lives ruined from gambling. The Bible condemns it because it is
an act of taking another person's money without receiving a service.
In other words, it is a good way to make others very upset with the
person who takes their money.
Small Business
wrote:
>hey Santa,
>
>
> Once again, you're clear things up for me, they sure are scary aren't
>they. If they had their way, they would empty out my accounts and sell all my
>assets to fund their socialist endeavours....
>
>Francois
hahahah......Smuc and Smoe have found each other. lol
Notice how everybody who is not extremely right-wing is a socialist.
Actually, according to these turkeys, anybody who is not an Alliance
supporter is socialist.
Listen Francois, you had better go back to school and learn what the
word Socialism is. Even the NDP is not not Socialist by definition.
You hang on to your dirty little wallet Francois. The rest of us will
enjoy our lives knowing that we actually have real friends.
There is an old saying; He who steals my money steals trash.
LEARN IT!!!!
Small Business
>> 1. I didn't avoid any questions because you were replying to another
>> poster. You are too stupid to even realize this.
>
>To my original post, you chimed in with "You call us lemmings?", which added
>information zero to the argument at hand. I've come to expect such childish
>remarks from you and F. Ewe.
>
No, I simply point out your lunacy.
>> 2. Your artistic snippage of the posts is quite revealing. You are a
>> forger and a con for this snippage.
>
>Blah blah forger blah blah con blah blah snippage blah blah racist blah blah
>bigot... what did I snip?
What don't you snip is the question?
> I resubmitted my original post (the one to which
>you replied "You call us lemmings", remember?) in full because it was easier
>than restating an argument to which you presented no rebuttal. You will
>answer my challenges as I've answered yours, directly and without
>equivocation, or be exposed for the sad little kitten you are.
>
No, you snipped my post and I retaliated. I post nothing but rebuttal
and constantly prove you wrong. I constantly reveal your bigotry, and
lies. You lied about the debt not being reduced. You lied about the
government not spending more on health care. You are bigoted and
sexist by calling others girls. You compare liberals with pedophiles.
What more damage can one person do to their credibility?
<snip of SATAN'S post>
Small Business
Tell me SATAN, will this be the new election platform in the next
election? You keep repeating this pornographic grant over and over.
I keep wondering if the Alliance will mention all the students who got
federal grant money for school and used it to buy new computers.
I didn't know that the government must hold our hands all the way to
the bank.
>Santa.
SantaSat*n
No dear, it was necessary to burst your staunch communist belief that all
business people are greedy scum and should be fiscally raped whenever
possible to support your lesbian pornography. It was also necessary to burst
your staunch Eastern belief that Alliance members are "red necked, bigoted,
fascist, hill billies" - your exact words. Remember, dear?
>
> >- far
> >better than any Liberal stooge will ever do.
>
> Liberals never give to charity? Are you out of your nit picking mind.
> Knock, knock....helllllooooo....anybody home?
My fault, dear; I should have clarified that my comment on "Liberal stooge"
referred to Chretien's MPs and armchair world-savers like you. Canadians
have proven continually that money is more efficiently appropriated by local
charities and authorities than by a parochial federal government. Further to
that end, you seem wholly insulted that I would even suggest that Liberals
are selfish, yet you have claimed countless times that Alliance members like
me want to destroy Canada for selfish gain. "Poor people have a right to
share the wealth of this land and shouldn't have their rights stolen by the
Alliance." Your exact words, remember? Knock, knock... hello... anybody
home? Why is it socially acceptable to brand Alliance members as selfish,
but not Liberals? I'm really interested in your thoughts on this, dear,
since you started it.
> >I support hard work and ethical
> >business, and strong communities that attack homelessness and poverty
> >head-on.
>
> You being a self righteous lunatic, think that you can spew your
> twisted lies and logic because you give to charity?
No, no, sweetie. I, being a self-righteous lunatic, think that hard work,
ethical business, freedom and democracy will heal this nation, not grants to
your lesbian pornography.
> >What I will NOT support are my taxes feeding Chretien's Shawinigan
> >hotel sales and Shiela Copps' lesbian pornographers, gay pride parades
and
> >similar "culture", while their Liberal government throws the genuine sick
> >and poor into the streets via health care and EI cuts.
>
> Do you ever stop to breathe? Talk about a long winded sentence. You
> are full of them. They keep getting repeated over and over. There are
> rules about this in usenet you know?
Translation: I, SB, can't defend Shiela Copps' funding lesbian pornography
in the face of federal Liberal cuts to health care and EI. SantaSatan has
exposed my armchair Liberal generosity, so I'll rant aimlessly and threaten
him with Usenet rules, hoping to shut him up. Remember what I said about
Liberals all wanting to be little dictators? Well, dearest... your inner
dictator seems to be alive and kicking now, doesn't it?
> The Canadian voters disagree with your views on how are tax dollars
> are being spent as witnessed in our last election.
If the voters prefer lesbian pornography and gay pride parades to health
care and EI, so be it; that's why it's called a DEMOCRACY, honey. I have two
choices: I can 1) Support the Alliance and rally for social and political
change in my country, or 2) leave my country. Given the Alliance closed to
within 10 points of the Liberals, crushed the PC Party like insects and
installed Stock Day into Parliament despite the Liberals' shady campaign
tactics and distortions of the truth, I think I'll stick around, help out,
and see what happens. What do you think of democracy now, dearest?
> Helping the poor is quoting the Bible to suit my Liberal agenda?
> You keep tripping over your own feet. The pharisees were the high
> priests of their Jewish faith but Jesus condemned them as vipers!
Review: 1) You brand the Alliance as a party of "religious nuts, racists and
bigots", then 2) You quote the BIBLE, Stockwell Day's chosen bedtime reading
material, to support YOUR Liberal views. See above. It's called "hypocracy",
sweetie. This aint rocket science.
> >> Psalms 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them
> >> be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
> >
> >Let's review that: "The WICKED in his pride doth persecute the poor".
> >Perhaps to you and your grant-collecting friends, ALL businesspeople in
> >Canada (actually anyone who's worked harder than you to make a living for
> >themselves) is "wicked".
>
> We saw how you prided yourself above in your charity. Good people find
> satisfaction in giving without bragging about it. You certainly have
> won the prize for non-sequitur.
Oh dearest, what a clever debate style you have! First, you claim "Poor
people have a right to share the wealth of this land and shouldn't have
their rights stolen by the Alliance". Now, if I fail to rebut this claim,
you assert victory and jump around your bed in dazed, girlish euphoria. But,
if I DO rebut with evidence, you scold me for "bragging" about Alliance
generosity. Either way, I lose. You go, girl! Someday, when I lose my sanity
and sense of moral decency, I might try that debate style too. Of course,
all this academic chatter still doesn't explain how your passage from Psalms
10:2 about the "wicked" relates in any way to the Canadian Alliance's
treatment of the poor and sick. But luckily my posts do. They show that you
voted for a party which favors lesbian pornography to helping Canada's sick
and poor. Sorry, dear... sometimes these win-win traps backfire when set
improperly.
> > Any sane person knows the vast majority of Canadian
> >business owners, especially small business owners, are honest and
generous
> >people, and have a genuine concern for the individual and collective
needs
> >of their employees.
> >
>
> Then why has minimum wage been stuck at dirt low amounts for years?
I'm stunned. This is your first lucid question to date, so I will give you a
straight answer. The minimum wage is largely a product of greed of the
bottom 10% of large businesses (ie McD's and their ilk), and unskilled
labourers with no work ethic. That's why I said "the vast majority (NOT ALL)
of Canadian business owners, ESPECIALLY small business owners, are honest
and generous people". The trick to raising the minimum wage is to lower
taxes. This will increase employment and tip the supply/demand curve towards
the employee. St. Albert, a town north of Edmonton, can't find anyone to man
its fast food restaurants. Wendy's is hiring there at $12/hour because the
unemployment rate has dropped to <1%. Some McDonald's in the U.S. are hiring
at $20/hour CDN ($14 USD) for this same reason.
SB, now please listen, because I feel very strongly about the minimum wage.
I'm a big believer in profit sharing, stock and responsible employment, but
not all employment standards can be legislated; some must be created through
a capitalist environment that promotes employer-employee equity. I work in
the computer industry, primarily in graphics and research roles. I rewrite,
for $25/hour on contract (no benefits), what programmers at companies
couldn't write properly for >$50/hour. Until 1998, I was earning $10/hour,
and I was coding 3D graphics pipelines in assembly language and building
digital circuits when I was earning $4/hour running a shake machine at
McDonald's 12 years ago. I am appalled at the johnny-come-latelies which
have entered this industry looking for easy money for their substandard
training and services. I deal with 20-something "IT professionals" daily
that would give you a blank stare if you asked them to convert 255 from
decimal to binary. Most of these 20-somethings are LIBERAL SUPPORTERS. I'm
not fabricating this. Ask your local computer tech and see for yourself.
Most of these kids talk about solving homelessness and fixing health care,
while in the next minute they bitch about their cushy jobs at Nortel while
seniors are working at minimum wage at fast food restaurants. Is that fair?
Hell no. I KNOW I could take a few of those seniors, throw in a few
high-school kids (real geeks, not poseurs), and, in a year, teach them the
kind of computer science that less than 1% of the "IT professional" crowd
knows. Then, build a company and start putting these 20-something charletans
out of business. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to do that...
yet, but I am working toward that goal. It is MY job to help these people,
not the role of the government. The role of a democratic government is to be
fair to its citizens, ensure democratic representation, preserve the
environment and promote health and economic growth, in a
fiscally-responsible manner.
Do NOT associate the Alliance with greed or selfishness. Alliance people are
good Canadians - patriots to this country. It is a grassroots party, with
support from all races, ages, incomes, genders and backgrounds. I know
Alliance members in mechanical engineering, homemaking, construction,
electronics, medicine and clerical fields. I also know a few Alliance WW2
veterans. These are people that have bled for your freedom, and I will
continue to patronize you if you insist on affronting these people like
you've been doing with your unsubstantiated remarks. Fair enough?
> Why you connect leprosy with this particular passage is really not
> known. Leprosy has been a consistent plague for thousands of years yet
> you specifically draw a connection to it here? I checked my
> electronic Bible and the word is not even mentioned in the book of
> Isiaah! Here is another passage form the same paragraph that relates
> to the same idea and clearly shows what it being said. Basically, the
> whole paragraph condemns sinful people.
Sorry dearest, I misinterpreted an irrelevant point in your passage. Is this
another example of your clever debate style? Draw a vague analogy between
the Alliance's treatment of the poor and sick to a Biblical passage to prove
YOUR argument, then demand that I interpret YOUR analogy? Sorry, dear, but
it's time for YOU to interpret YOUR analogy. YOU decide how Isaiah 3:14
relates to the Alliance, the poor and sick, then YOU make a statement to
prove YOUR original claim, "Poor people have a right to share the wealth of
this land and shouldn't have their rights stolen by the Alliance". Then when
YOU decide where your argument is going, I will rebut. Ok, sweets?
> Isaiah 3:5, "And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another,
> and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly
> against the ancient, and the base against the honourable."
>
> Isaiah 3:15, "What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind
> the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts."
>
> My Bible Commentary says that the elders and the princess were
> responsible for the people but instead stole from the poor. This
> paragraph is about oppression.
Ok then. The Liberals were "responsible for the people" of Canada, but
instead "stole" from our health care and EI to fund Shawinigan hotels and
lesbian pornography. I see the analogy now, dearest. I was blind once, but
now I see! By the way, is this a discussion on Alliance/Liberal policy or a
pilot session for Who Wants to Be a Biblical Scholar?
> >Interesting.
> >How many corporations or wealthy individuals in Canada would fit that
> >analogy, as a percentage of total employment? 5%? 10%? I'm willing to bet
> >most HRDC grant recipients would fit, because that fund steals DIRECTLY
from
> >transfer payments to health care and education, effectively screwing the
> >sick and poor. Count me OUT of that kind of "justice".
> >
>
> The sick and poor can also receive grants. If the Alliance was in
> power there would be no grants.
Tell me dearest, which grants do the sick and poor currently receive? Which
of these grants would the Alliance take away? In what way will the
Alliance's destruction of the HRDC, and its reappropriation of Shiela Copps'
lesbian pornographic funding back into health care and EI, hurt the "sick"
and "poor"? I asked you why you support Shiela Copps' "justice for the
poor", when it seems fairly clear to me the LAST thing the sick and poor
need is pornographic videos.
> You are the only person who brags about giving to charity. You have
> done it three times in one post!!!
"It is JUSTICE to support the poor. Poor people have a right to share the
wealth of this land and shouldn't have their rights stolen by the Alliance."
YOUR words, sweets, not mine. PROVE it and I'll stop bragging about Alliance
generosity.
> >Why can't
> >you and your grant collecting artsie fiends admit it...
>
> Bigot and ignorant nit. Something wrong with intellectually
> imaginative?
Nothing is wrong with intellectual imagination, when YOU are working to fund
YOUR imagination. All good things come with sacrifice, honey. I'd prefer to
quit my day job and continue my ongoing research into fractal pattern
registration in the comfort of my home, but the reality is that I must
sacrifice MY life to work on MY "intellectually imaginative" ideas, not the
lives of others. To expect others to foot the bill for my intellectual
enlightenment would make ME at "bigot". Did that help clear things up, dear?
> >you don't give two
> >sh*ts about the poor, and you never have. You just want your hands on
more
> >assistance. You are nothing more than a prostitute, and a cowardly one at
> >that.
> >
>
> I assume you have proof to back your slander?
1) "It is justice to support the poor. Poor people have a right to share the
wealth of this land and shouldn't have their rights stolen by the Alliance."
2) "The problem is that the Alliance tries to use this bigotry to their
advantage." 3) "The fact of the matter is that, the Alliance represents the
red necked, bigoted, fascist, hill billies!!!". I assume YOU have proof to
back YOUR slander, sweets?
> Don't forget the Satan part of your nickname. Why it is there is a
> real mystery.
Glad to clear this one up, hon. Santa and Satan are mutual anagrams, which
has meanings on various levels if you care to look. Personally, I like the
alliteration and the name's oxymoronical nature. A Santa Satan brings nasty
toys that kids would prefer not to have. Likewise, I bring nasty little
factual presents Liberals like yourself would likely not like to have. There
you have it.
SantaSatan.
Small Business
> > People must wonder about a guy who tells everybody about his charity!
>
>No dear, it was necessary to burst your staunch communist belief that all
>business people are greedy scum and should be fiscally raped whenever
>possible to support your lesbian pornography. It was also necessary to burst
>your staunch Eastern belief that Alliance members are "red necked, bigoted,
>fascist, hill billies" - your exact words. Remember, dear?
1. The constant use of sexist, bigoted way of calling others dear.
2. The constant slander of others.
3. Plain lying. I have never said that I support lesbian pornography.
4. All this in one paragraph of many!!!
<snip>
E. Barry Bruyea
>It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
>care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
>the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>
>We need free health care.
>
>We need free prescription drugs.
>
>We need free eye care.
>
>We need free dental care.
>
>We need free home care.
>
>We need free homeopathic and complementary medical care.
>
>In short, we need a free, total, health care system.
>
>We didn't get medicare without a fight - doctors went on strike against
>it - and an extension of health care won't be easy. But history shows
>us that without a fight, we don't get anything.
>
>Once we have total, free, health care, we should move on to free post-
>secondary education for all who qualify, total protection of the
>environment, and to guarantee some form of shelter for all citizens.
>
>We live in a prosperous, wealthy, part of the world and there is no
>reason why we can't set the pace for a revitalization of democratic
>socialism.
>
>It's time to THINK BIG!!
>
>F. Yew
"Free" Ewe? And just exactly how is this going to happen? Nurses
working for no pay? Doctors? Contractors building hospitals for
nothing? Drug companies supplying drugs for nothing? Please
elaborate on how 'Free" is going to be handled. If you do, I'm quite
sure that the Nobel committe will seriously consider you for their
economics prize.
F. Yew
Don't be such a dolt.
I pointed out in another post that these services would be free at the
point of service. In other words, if you are not working and
destitute, you'll still get the same service as everyone else. I know
this is a difficult concept for you, being a Mike Harris bum-boy and
all, but try and think of this proposal as a vast and comprehensive
extension of medicare.
It will be paid for by taxpayers like you and me. And guess what? I
don't have a problem with that.
F. Yew
Wave good-bye to the Alliance. Here comes the new left!
E. Barry Bruyea
>h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:02:50 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"F. A." <zzz...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Define "free"
>> >
>> >No cost at point of service.
>> >
>> >> Define how "free" will be paid for
>> >
>> >It will be paid for by taxing wealth.
>>
>> So when the wealthy have left and the wealth is gone who will pay for
>> it then?
>
>Don't be a foolish naysayer. Some people argued that society couldn't
>afford the 40 hour work week, couldn't afford public education, and
>couldn't afford medicare. They were wrong and you are wrong.
Well, Ewe, I think recent economics surrounding medicare have proven
that under its present structure, we can't afford it. It has been
running down like an old clock for about 15 years now. Exactly how the
detractors of the mid 60's said it would. There is a cure, of course,
and that is to tax the public even more than it is now and lower our
standard of living at a faster pace than has been evident in the past
decade. As to your usual rant about taxing the wealthy, the Brits
tried that and capital fled the country by the shipload and even
Harold Wilson realized that it was a negative producing tax.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>F.Yew,
>
>
> Your answers are a little too simplistic, define wealth.
In Ewe's usual self serving manner 'wealth' is no doubt anything
anyone has that is more than he has.
E. Barry Bruyea
>On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:42:11 GMT, "SantaSat*n" <x...@x.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't think it does. That's why Canada, with our immense wealth,
>>> could show/lead the way.
>>
>>Who's paying for it, again? The programs you are suggesting will cost around
>>$40B per year. Where will that money come from? Certainly not from YOUR
>>wallet, right?
>>
>
>You, being a complete lunatic, certainly don't even represent the
>Alliance perspective. It is "JUSTICE" to support the poor. Poor people
>have a right to share the wealth of this land and shouldn't have their
>rights stolen by the Alliance.
Hey, dipshit, I hate to bring this to your attention, but the Alliance
lost.
E. Barry Bruyea
>The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
>Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
>government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
>funding.
Why do you insist on constant repetition of this lie? In spite of all
evidence to the contrary? The present level of health care funding is
below 1995 levels and nothing your idiot mind can do will change that.
Accept it, nameless, 'cause it's true!
Small Business
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:29:32 GMT, Small Business <n...@email.org> wrote:
No, spending levels have never been higher.
JMD
these specialized services?
John Dowell
"F. Yew" <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:90e454$c11$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
> care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life into
> the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>
> We need free health care.
(Alma village idiot stuff snipped)
JMD
Archibald? The state will provide.
You are such a dope. You still believe in the greatest failed ideology of
all time -- socialism.
John Dowell
"archie kennedy" <aken...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A2ABA7D...@ns.sympatico.ca...
F. A.
Small Business wrote:
SB,
again, you're so wrong. Spending levels are still below the 1995
levels. Since taking office, the Liberals have cut $25-billion of health
and social transfer payments to the provinces, compromising all five
principles of medicare. If you are going to make such statements, then go
to your school library and support your points with facts, thats what we
call those statements written on paper. You're not very bright are you?
Francois
F. A.
Small Business wrote:
>
> >
> >Why do you insist on constant repetition of this lie? In spite of all
> >evidence to the contrary? The present level of health care funding is
> >below 1995 levels and nothing your idiot mind can do will change that.
> >Accept it, nameless, 'cause it's true!
>
> No, spending levels have never been higher.
Ok SB,
I went right to Stats Can website and dug up the facts:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Government/govt02b.htm
Health care expenditures Fedaral Govt. From April 1 of one year to March 31
of the next year for all years.
1995-1996 $9,024,000,000
1996-1997 $1,177,000,000
1997-1998 $1,328,000,000
1998-1999 $1,667,000,000
1999-2000 $1,710,000,000
Comments?
Francois
F. A.
Small Business wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:11:08 GMT, sha...@dusk.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:29:32 GMT, Small Business <n...@email.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
> >>Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
> >>government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
> >>funding.
> >
> >
> >Why do you insist on constant repetition of this lie? In spite of all
> >evidence to the contrary? The present level of health care funding is
> >below 1995 levels and nothing your idiot mind can do will change that.
> >Accept it, nameless, 'cause it's true!
>
> No, spending levels have never been higher.
Ok SB,
Time to prove you wrong. I went right to Stats Can (BTW, that's our
own federal govt) website and dug up the facts:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Government/govt02b.htm
Health care expenditures Fedaral Govt. From April 1 of one year to March 31
of the next year for all years.
1992-1993 $9,803,000,000
RES
Didn't know the Ont. law. Thank you. RES
E. Barry Bruyea
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:11:08 GMT, sha...@dusk.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:29:32 GMT, Small Business <n...@email.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
>>>Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
>>>government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
>>>funding.
>>
>>
>>Why do you insist on constant repetition of this lie? In spite of all
>>evidence to the contrary? The present level of health care funding is
>>below 1995 levels and nothing your idiot mind can do will change that.
>>Accept it, nameless, 'cause it's true!
>
>No, spending levels have never been higher.
You, nameless, are so full of shit and your own propaganda that I
doubt you know your armpit from your asshole. Crawl back under your
rock.
E. Barry Bruyea
>sha...@dusk.com (E. Barry Bruyea) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:41:41 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It's time for a new political battle - the battle for total health
>> >care. Besides giving Canadians what we need, it could breath life
>into
>> >the NDP. It could give it a new raison d'etre.
>> >
>> >We need free health care.
>> >
By me and others, maybe, but I doubt very much if a mental leech like
you ever paid enough taxes to pay for a tongue depresser.
RES
Lifestyle diseases such as the ones I've mentioned, including heart
disease, 80% of cancers, stroke, etc. are easily preventable.
Individuals can take a certain amount of action re: what they put into
their mouths and how much they exercise. As well, Governments and
Corporations, too, are responsible for environmental causes of the these
illnesses. You are 100% right in pointing out individuals themselves
cannot solve societal problems totally or even partially. The points you
raised above concerning all these things I accept.
Pollution, contaminated food supply, depleted nutritional content of
foods are all 'lifestyle' components that governments don't have the
political will to address.
The medical profession has much to answer for as well, being for the
most part and extension of the pharmaceutical industry.
After saying all this, Government has an important role to play - a
leadership role - in promoting rules which minimize these deleterious
factors on human health. Fact is they don't.
And when it comes to medicare, the NDP is fine and progressive on what
needs to be done to 'save the system' - (I support that 100%), but
aren't articulating the importance of appreciating the weight of these
other factors - the ones producing these chronic diseases - which will
hamper our ability to keep a healthy population under any health
service delivery criteria.RES
> >In case you have haven't noticed, we have a thick smog hanging
> >> over Toronto. This being only one the literally millions of reasons
> >> why people;die a death earlier than life expectancy.
> >>
> >
This is not a 'lifestyle' or environmental cause? RES
> >Companies and Governments can't do anything about smog. Kyoto Agreement
> >eviscerated by US and Canada. RES
> >
>
> Perhaps it is too late for all of us but the root of the problem is
> corruption. If it wasn't for corruption we could change things.
>
I would put the same thing in a different way. Economic vested interests
have their own imperatives. Profit. It is more profitable to treat sick
people than to prevent sickness. Why not have the cost of sickness
socialized when you can privatize the profits, as the various polluters
do, and the food companies who know dam well what their doing when the
put their sugars and fats in food etc. RES
I am a pessimist for the above reasons. Canada's ability to exercise
sovereignty has been negotiated away in NAFTA and the WTO.
Some of these battles were fought and lost 15 years ago. Plant Breeders
Rights was passed by the Liberal Government allowing for the patent of
life for companies like Monsanto. Medicare now will be attacked by
virtue of the lowest common denominator of Alberta and its 2 tier
medicine by NAFTA regulations. It goes on. I define these factors as
'lifestyle' factors.
Drug costs are a major expenditure for provincial government programs.
Europeans are reducing their drug costs dramatically by alternative
forms of treatment and prevention. Science is 10 years ahead of the
medical profession which the government is overtly relying on. Frankly
the NDP Government in my province has no interest in finding out about
these alternatives so far as I can see. I guess they'll wait until
countries like France launch national programs and 5 years later say
'Hey, let's do what they did'.
The diagnostic stuff is expensive but are squat in terms of disease
prevention.RES
--
Once the health care system is gone I see little here in Canada that
will distinguish it from our neighbours to the south - which means our
day of reckoning will hit sooner rather than later - namely our ability
to function economically will encounter an environmental deficit. We see
it now with our food supply and chronic disease. The Communist just had
it earlier because they were even less concerned about these things. RES
Small Business
wrote:
>
>
>Small Business wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:11:08 GMT, sha...@dusk.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:29:32 GMT, Small Business <n...@email.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
>> >>Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
>> >>government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
>> >>funding.
>> >
>> >
>> >Why do you insist on constant repetition of this lie? In spite of all
>> >evidence to the contrary? The present level of health care funding is
>> >below 1995 levels and nothing your idiot mind can do will change that.
>> >Accept it, nameless, 'cause it's true!
>>
>> No, spending levels have never been higher.
>
>Ok SB,
>
> Time to prove you wrong. I went right to Stats Can (BTW, that's our
>own federal govt) website and dug up the facts:
>
>http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Government/govt02b.htm
>
>Health care expenditures Fedaral Govt. From April 1 of one year to March 31
>
>of the next year for all years.
>
>1992-1993 $9,803,000,000
>1995-1996 $9,024,000,000
>1996-1997 $1,177,000,000
>1997-1998 $1,328,000,000
>1998-1999 $1,667,000,000
>1999-2000 $1,710,000,000
>
>Comments?
These figures don't include the Canadian Health and Social Transfer
payments. Total CHST cash and tax transfers will reach an all-time
high of close to $31 billion in 2000-2001.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/budget/english/2000/healthcare.htm
It follows the health care investment of $11.5 billion in the 1999
Budget -- the Government's largest single investment ever.
E. Barry Bruyea
"Will" and 'are' are two different scenarios and taking it in adjusted
dollars, it just ain't, nameless.
allie_...@my-deja.com
F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> F. Yew
> I'm always willing to show the rich how to spend their money.
I think that sort of says it all. A socialist without money of their
own will gleefully bankrupt anyone else who's stupid enough to let them
into their pocket!
If you're so damn smart FuckYew, so damn superior in intellect that you
can show us idiot rich people how to spend our money, how come you're
not smart enough to EARN your own?
allie_...@my-deja.com
"SantaSat*n" <x...@x.com> wrote:
> I have a few. At what rate do you think wealth should be taxed? What
rate is
> sufficient to pay for these social programs? Will varying income
earners be
> taxed at different percentage rates? What will happen when the
hard-working
> people leave, and this nation is populated by pedophiles and lesbian
> pornographers with their hands out for more grants?
>
> So far, your plan to implement this Great Canadian Socialist Utopia
amounts
> to me tutoring a chess player to "take the king". Do you have any
figures or
> plans to demonstrate HOW you will actually accomplish it?
You're wasting your breath Santa, the lefties are only smart enough
to come up with the first part of these brain burps.
They lack the brains to 1) come up with a clear workable plan to
implement them or understand the anarchy they would create and 2)
they lack the brains needed to EARN the money to fund them.
Instead they pillage hard working tax payers. Socialist=Thief.
Unite the right!
Allie
allie_...@my-deja.com
aken...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
<snip>
Why did we know that Archie would fall all over himself to jump
onto this call to the gravy train?
As for "take", why don't you try working for it, instead.
allie_...@my-deja.com
h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:21:19 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Canadians deserve free, total health care.
>
> And free food, and free housing, and free..., and free...
>
They still haven't answered who would pay for this utopia.
allie_...@my-deja.com
"SantaSat*n" <x...@x.com> wrote:
> > >Canadians deserve free, total health care.
> >
> > And free food, and free housing, and free..., and free...
>
education,
> free hamburgers, free carpet cleaning, free pornographic video rentals
and
> other necessities of life. You are committing a grave injustice to the
> "poor". You are a rich, racist, intolerant, homophobic, selfish bigot.
Now
> shut up and pay for my research on the history of Vancouver exotic
dancers,
> as is your duty as a "just" and "kind" Canadian citizen.
>
> Bloody insane, isn't it? ;)
>
> Santa.
Santa, you forgot my free beer and free drugs. Don't forget the rolling
papers, ok? ;)
UNITE the right!
Allie
allie_...@my-deja.com
> Look at what you just stated... "The national debt costs us money. A
> deficit costs us even more. So,
> it makes sense to eliminate both and stop paying interest to the
> wealthy."
>
> What the hell do you really mean? How the hell do you think
the
> national debt started? (Answer: Trudeau; Mulroney and Chretien). You
> sound like someone in 1st year university or 12 grade high school at
> best, just trying to sound "educated", fuck are you ever thick! Thick
as
> a plank on the floor...
Too bad you can't use a plank and wonk FYew on the head. Perhaps we'd
all get lucky and it would knock some sense into him/it. Wishful
thinking I know, but what the hell ;)
UNITE the Right!
nkennedy
you can show us idiot rich people how to spend our money, how come
Boy am I impressed! I wish I had been sharp enough to create that
amazing idea.
For hundreds of years in the future we will see cryptoquotes with
your clever creation:
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
Allie Walker
The depth, the insight. I feel honoured just to be a spectator to such
everlasting prose.
Neil K
E. Barry Bruyea
>In article <90e454$c11$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> F. Yew
>> I'm always willing to show the rich how to spend their money.
>
>I think that sort of says it all. A socialist without money of their
>own will gleefully bankrupt anyone else who's stupid enough to let them
>into their pocket!
>
>If you're so damn smart FuckYew, so damn superior in intellect that you
>can show us idiot rich people how to spend our money, how come you're
>not smart enough to EARN your own?
A tin cup doens't generate all that much revenue in Alma, so, to
paraphrase, like Stella, he has to depend on the taxation of others.
E. Barry Bruyea
>In article <3a2acc18....@news.eagle.ca>,
> h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:21:19 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Canadians deserve free, total health care.
>>
>> And free food, and free housing, and free..., and free...
>>
>
>They still haven't answered who would pay for this utopia.
There is only one answer for Ewe: "Somebody else."
Honest John
Schaffer) wrote:
>In article <3a2acb3a....@news.eagle.ca>,
>Honest John <h...@taxpayers.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>>Doctors are, they are forced to work for OHIP if they want to practice
>>their craft.
>
>afaik, doctors are free to start their private practices where they
>see only private patients. they can't do any billing to OHIP then,
>though.
and they cannot bill more than the OHIP rate for the services. Thus
they would have the problem of collecting fees directly from their
patients who would then have to bill OHIP to recover said fee. All in
all an impractical system.
Honest John
wrote:
>A tin cup doens't generate all that much revenue in Alma, so, to
>paraphrase, like Stella, he has to depend on the taxation of others.
>
Those porking out of the public trough, invariably want to make sure
it is kept full.
archie kennedy
>
> They still haven't answered who would pay for this utopia.
Who would pay? As it is, the wealth of this land is simply taken by those
with the means to take it. The very rich. Take oil wealth for instance,
or timber wealth. There is no reason we can afford to give this wealth to
the wealthy few while a large portion of the population are in need of the
basics.
To allow ourselves and out thinking to be confined to the capitalist
framework is idiocy. To allow the very rich to accumulate the wealth of
this land for themselves id also stupidity. They are nothing more than
parasites with no social value whatsoever.
Archie
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
<aken...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> It's time to THINK BIG!!
>
>Right on. And I would add, we need to develop new ways to fund universal
>social programs. The right is right. We must cut the debt and cut it to
>nothing. What we need to do is to take ownership of the countries vast
>resources and instead of allowing this wealth to be appropriated by the
>rich, this wealth should be used to feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and
>health care for those that need the above mentioned commodities.
>
>All needs should be provided universally.
Archie, darling, you have come out of the closet!! How sweet of you.
And now that the government has made gun ownership illegal, how are
you and your drunken bum buddies from the joiners union going to seize
power? And of course you are ready to kill me and my family, of
course. And a few million others , of course?
Have fun on the revolution thing. Let us know where to line up for the
killing fields. I hope they are in Nova Scotia, it has been a long
time since I was there.
>
>Archie
>
>
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
>On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:22:17 GMT, "SantaSat*n" <x...@x.com> wrote:
>
>>> > It's time to THINK BIG!!
>>>
>>> Right on. And I would add, we need to develop new ways to fund universal
>>> social programs. The right is right. We must cut the debt and cut it to
>>> nothing. What we need to do is to take ownership of the countries vast
>>> resources and instead of allowing this wealth to be appropriated by the
>>> rich, this wealth should be used to feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and
>>> health care for those that need the above mentioned commodities.
>>>
>>> All needs should be provided universally.
>>>
>>> Archie
>>
>>Brought a tear to me eye, laddy. Now tell me...
>>
>>1. To which local charitable organizations have YOU recently volunteered or
>>donated money to help "feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and health care
>>for those that need the above mentioned commodities"?
>
>I do regularly give to charity.
So do I. I gave $50K last year. And that was before I got to choose
the charities.
So how much did you conribute to the collective Tiny Business?
>
>>
>>2. Since you, F. Ewe, Small Business, lesbian pornographers, pedophiles and
>>career welfare cases will likely be on the receiving end of these services,
>>who will be paying for them?
>>
>
>You seem to have a classification for everyone.
Unlike you, you old generalist.
>
>>3. The Alliance is the ONLY national party that wants to "cut the debt and
>>cut it to nothing"... as fast as possible,
>
>The Liberals have reduced the debt already!!!
Oh yeah baby!! We are down to what, 180 years til it is paid off. I
can hardly wait.
>
>>while immediately restoring
>>health care and education funding. Since Alliance policy seems to coincide
>>with your aforementioned goals, you voted Alliance in this past election,
>>right?
>
>The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
>Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
>government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
>funding.
And the line ups and waits for basic health care have never been
longer. See the connection?
>
>>Santa.
>
>You always leave out the Satan part of your nick name.
And you forget to add that Small Business used to be Big Business,
until the Liberals got ahold of it.
We'll just call you Tiny from now on, Like the national debt.
>
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 01:17:07 GMT, "SantaSat*n" <x...@x.com> wrote:
>
>>> >1. To which local charitable organizations have YOU recently volunteered
>>or
>>> >donated money to help "feed, clothe, house, provide drugs and health care
>>> >for those that need the above mentioned commodities"?
>>>
>>> I do regularly give to charity.
>>
>>And those would be...?
>>
>
>You ask me these stupid personal questions even though you accuse me
>of not answering? You being a typical right-wing goon continually
>bring honest political debating down to a personal level of attack. My
>charity is personal and don't need to brag about it like you do in
>other posts.
So that would be about 50 cents per year, given annually to the
Salvation Army, by the mall.
>
>>> >2. Since you, F. Ewe, Small Business, lesbian pornographers, pedophiles
>>and
>>> >career welfare cases will likely be on the receiving end of these
>>services,
>>> >who will be paying for them?
>>> >
>>>
>>> You seem to have a classification for everyone.
>>
>>A classification for lesbian pornographers, pedophiles and able-bodied
>>career welfare cases? You bet. I classify them in my "people NOT to EVER
>>meet or waste time or money on" file.
>>
>
>All this people are very sick and should be dealt with accordingly.
>However, it doesn't give you the right to be their judge, jury and
>executioner. I have a big problem with you lumping welfare people in
>with pedophiles. You are one sick puppy.
>
>>> >3. The Alliance is the ONLY national party that wants to "cut the debt
>>and
>>> >cut it to nothing"... as fast as possible,
>>>
>>> The Liberals have reduced the debt already!!!
>>
>>Here we go again. Try to understand, hard as it may be: Our debt has
>>INCREASED from 1993 when our lowered dollar is accounted for.
>
>No, the amount of debt will be the same no matter what value our
>dollar is at. You are a liar and twist the truth SATAN. You try to
>weasel out of your stupidity.
>
>>As for paying
>>off the remaining debt, the current Liberal plan will take between 125 to
>>188 years.
>
>At least we started paying it down! You got your figures by being a
>puppet of Stockwell Day. Every time we knock the debt down we pay less
>interest on it and have even more to spend on further debt reduction.
>
>>We are paying what, $.42 on every tax dollar toward the debt?
>
>That is about right if my memory serves me correctly.
>
>>Don't you see a problem with that? The Alliance tax reduction and debt
>>repayment plans will reduce our debt repayment to 25-40 years.
>>
>
>That I would like to see considering that the Alliance platform would
>cost the most. This is one of the reasons why many people thought that
>the Alliance had a hidden agenda.
>
>>> The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
>>
>>Higher than what? Their LOWEST funding level? LOL. Even WITHOUT accounting
>>for inflation, the new Liberal mini-budget won't restore funding to 1993
>>levels.
>>
>
>This is again deceptive political propaganda. You use the art of the
>accountant to fool the public. You have often been quoted as saying
>that the Liberals have reduced health care funding even though it is
>not true anymore. What I say is truth and what you say is deception
>because you don't include the information about inflation in your
>figures.
>
>The Liberals aren't the only party to make cuts and the Harris
>government, and the former federal Conservatives were experts at this.
>We had to make cuts to remove the debt and the Canadian public were
>obviously not unhappy with this as witnessed from the majority
>government.
>
>>> Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
>>> government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
>>> funding.
>>
>>The Alliance wants to cut education funding? Do you have a link to this, or
>>shall we chalk up another demonstation of SB's special brand of reality?
>>
>>> >Santa.
>>>
>>> You always leave out the Satan part of your nick name.
>>
>>Honey, I've repeatedly shown you gross Liberal breaches of public trust,
>>corruption and misappropriation of public funds. After all that, if all you
>>can leverage against me is my oxymoronical nickname, maybe you should
>>rethink your position here and apply for the Little-League Debate Club at
>>AOL.
>
>I love how you continually use this sexist and bigoted insults. You
>have absolutely no credibility Iconlast.
>
>>SantaSatan.
>
>I see you haven't forgotten the SATAN part of your nick name this
>time.
>
>
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
>> >Canadians deserve free, total health care.
>>
>> And free food, and free housing, and free..., and free...
>
>Honest John, how DARE you deny Canadians of their "right" to free education,
>free hamburgers, free carpet cleaning, free pornographic video rentals and
>other necessities of life. You are committing a grave injustice to the
>"poor". You are a rich, racist, intolerant, homophobic, selfish bigot. Now
>shut up and pay for my research on the history of Vancouver exotic dancers,
>as is your duty as a "just" and "kind" Canadian citizen.
Free carpet cleaning? Damn, I just paid a guy to do it.
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
Archie, dear, you are foaming. Slow down. Relax. Breath.
Now, if someone creates wealth, employs people and contributes tax
dollars, they are a parasite, right?
And if I go to the welfare office and demand a new Volvo and VCR, I am
one fo the good, deserving poor?
Fabulous logic there Carl Marks.
Your education has been completely wasted.
>
>Archie
>
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
>On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 22:42:11 GMT, "SantaSat*n" <x...@x.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't think it does. That's why Canada, with our immense wealth,
>>> could show/lead the way.
>>
>>Who's paying for it, again? The programs you are suggesting will cost around
>>$40B per year. Where will that money come from? Certainly not from YOUR
>>wallet, right?
>>
>
>You, being a complete lunatic, certainly don't even represent the
>Alliance perspective. It is "JUSTICE" to support the poor. Poor people
>have a right to share the wealth of this land and shouldn't have their
>rights stolen by the Alliance.
>
> Isaiah 3:14, "The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of
>his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the
>vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses."
>
>Psalms 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them
>be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
>
>Psalms 10:8 He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the
>secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set
>against the poor.
Wow, smited by a socialist schmuck.
You must be smitty now, Santy!!
>
>
>>Santa.
>
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:35:07 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Get with the new millennium and develop a vision that goes beyond your
>>petty concerns of having to pay tax. Get over it. And get a life
>>while you're at it.
Actually, Fuck posts like someone who does not pay taxes. So why would
they be a concern to it?
>
>I would have more of a life, and so would my wife and children, if I
>didn't loose well over half my income to the tax man.
And you obviously do.
Small Business
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 18:45:03 GMT, Small Business <n...@email.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 15:51:04 GMT, "F. A." <zzz...@telusplanet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Small Business wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:11:08 GMT, sha...@dusk.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:29:32 GMT, Small Business <n...@email.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>The health care funding by the Liberals has never been higher.
>>>> >>Education funding is done by the provinces. The right-wing Ontario
>>>> >>government, like the "right-wing" Alliance, have reduced education
>>>> >>funding.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Why do you insist on constant repetition of this lie? In spite of all
>>>> >evidence to the contrary? The present level of health care funding is
>>>> >below 1995 levels and nothing your idiot mind can do will change that.
>>>> >Accept it, nameless, 'cause it's true!
>>>>
>>>> No, spending levels have never been higher.
>>>
>>>Ok SB,
>>>
>>> Time to prove you wrong. I went right to Stats Can (BTW, that's our
>>>own federal govt) website and dug up the facts:
>>>
>>>http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Government/govt02b.htm
>>>
>>>Health care expenditures Fedaral Govt. From April 1 of one year to March 31
>>>
>>>of the next year for all years.
>>>
>>>1992-1993 $9,803,000,000
>>>1995-1996 $9,024,000,000
>>>1996-1997 $1,177,000,000
>>>1997-1998 $1,328,000,000
>>>1998-1999 $1,667,000,000
>>>1999-2000 $1,710,000,000
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>These figures don't include the Canadian Health and Social Transfer
>>payments. Total CHST cash and tax transfers will reach an all-time
>>high of close to $31 billion in 2000-2001.
>
>"Will" and 'are' are two different scenarios and taking it in adjusted
>dollars, it just ain't, nameless.
If you had of read the url I posted you would of seen the record
expenditures on health care in 1999.
SantaSat*n
"victims", pedophiles, lesbian pornographic filmmakers, illegal immigrants
and ex-con Shawinigan hotel owners.
> No, I simply point out your lunacy.
But darling, I simply asked HOW you and F. Ewe will implement your
comprehensive socialist health care, and from WHOSE wallet you will garner
the funds to pay for it. Since lesbian art and these other "intellectually
imaginative" ideas of yours are most often funded by the taxpayer, I thought
I might be entitled, as a taxpayer, to an explanation of how you will
implement your lofty socialist utopia. Please don't be mad. If you and F.
Ewe can't give a straight explanation as to where my taxes will be going,
please, just say so. There's no shame in admitting your plan was half-baked
and starry-eyed. Liberals and young children devise such half-cocked plans
all the time. It's all part of growing up.
> What don't you snip is the question?
What question? In this thread? Did you post it to ont.general?
> No, you snipped my post and I retaliated.
Puzzling. Your post to me, in this thread, on Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:06:26 GMT,
consisted of: "You call us lemmings?". To that I reposted my original
challenge, the one that you and F. Ewe chose to avoid (twice). Then you
accused me of "snipping my lunatic post". I'm at a loss here, hon. Please,
by all means, repost whatever else you originally posted, and I shall
provide the response it warrants.
> I post nothing but rebuttal
> and constantly prove you wrong. I constantly reveal your bigotry, and
> lies.
Do you know what "bigotry" means, sweetie? Let me give you an example: A
"bigot" is a Liberal cabinet minister who stole from the sick and poor to
fund a $120K "intellectually imaginative" film about lesbian pornography
called "Bubbles Galore".
> You lied about the debt not being reduced.
I can only dumb down the math so far, hon. After that, remedial arithmetic
courses are your responsibility.
> You lied about the
> government not spending more on health care.
The Chretien Liberals cut 25% federal transfers from health care, while
cutting their own programs (HRDC and Co.) by only 11%. The $18.9B(?)
restoration by the federal Liberals will not restore funding to 1993 levels,
especially when inflation is accounted for.
> You are bigoted and
> sexist by calling others girls.
I call YOU a girl, because you ARE a girl. You seem very confused, dear.
Perhaps you should lie down.
> You compare liberals with pedophiles.
> What more damage can one person do to their credibility?
Actually, I associate Liberals with pedophiles, lesbian pornographers,
illegal immigrants and ex-con Shawinigan hotel owners, because Liberals take
ACTIVE steps to support these groups at the EXPENSE of Canadian business,
Canadian citizens, and the sick and poor.
For instance our Armed Forces personnel live in worse conditions on CF bases
than convicted pedophiles and murderers do in Canadian villa-like prisons.
Just how well do criminals live in Liberal Canadian prisons? CTV's W5 asked
Francesco "Frank the Strangler" Di Carlo to find out the #1 preferred nation
for the Italian Mafia to operate in is CANADA, due largely to our leniant
criminal justice system. But don't take MY word for it:
See, honey, it's about values. I choose to vote for a party that will lay
the law to criminals and protect the rights of victims. Us Calgarians choose
to support a party that will restore resources to our Armed Forces and give
our police officers a fair justice system that gives them a reason for
busting their asses to bring down crooks. I choose NOT to endorse the
"values" of lesbian pornography or pedophilia, because I find those
excercises disgusting, filthy and repulsive. You may feel differently.
That's why it's called a "democracy", hon.
SantaSatan.
SantaSat*n
>
> Notice how everybody who is not extremely right-wing is a socialist.
> Actually, according to these turkeys, anybody who is not an Alliance
> supporter is socialist.
No no... anyone who supports lesbian pornography at the expense of health
care, then screams "homophobia!" at opponents and demands they be silenced
through "Usenet rules" (your EXACT words) and similar legislation... is
SOCIALIST. Well, perhaps socialist with a sprinkle of autocracy.
> Listen Francois, you had better go back to school and learn what the
> word Socialism is. Even the NDP is not not Socialist by definition.
> You hang on to your dirty little wallet Francois. The rest of us will
> enjoy our lives knowing that we actually have real friends.
The NDP isn't socialist; the NDP is femenazi. No male candidate would escape
unscathed with the kind of tripe she spews to gain the emancipated female
vote. As for "dirty little wallets", let's review: "The fact of the matter
is that, the Alliance represents the red necked, bigoted, fascist, hill
billies!!!". Those dirty little wallet words were YOUR dirty little wallet
words... words which you have failed, after repeated challenging, to back
with evidence. You seem to have Alexa's memory and grasp of reality, SB.
Perhaps you belong in the NDP?
> There is an old saying; He who steals my money steals trash.
This makes about as much sense as drawing an analogy between a passage from
Isaiah 3:14 and the Canadian Alliance. Now, for clarity, please explain how
stealing money is like stealing trash. If my money is so worthless, why are
you and F. Ewe so intent on grabbing more of it to pay for your lesbian
pornography?
> LEARN IT!!!!
I learned math, logical reasoning, hard work and honor in grade school. It's
not too late for you to do the same.
Santa.
gseiber...@sentex.net
You've really been obsessing on this lesbian art thing, you know. I
know some lesbians. I know some artists too. They're not really that
scary.
Cheers
Gary