He/she can just go ahead and recklessly operate interfering equipment even if it causes deaths!
Yes.
The manufacturer warrants the product and thus should be responsible for those deaths.
The manufacturer should either not provide a blanket warranty or enter into an agreement so the owner does not operate the equipment until it is replaced.
No, the way the law is written, the equipment operator is responsible for what gets broadcast.
And, if it is a "Class A" device, the manufacturer warrants that it will not interfere in a residential environment. (Though, many electronic devices sold for residential use are "Class B", requiring the operator to take corrective action if they interfere, and letting the manufacturer off the hook. Yes, this is a simplification)
I stand by my position: the manufacturer should be liable by virtue of their likely warranty that this won't happen. Yes, even if people die, because the device is operated. (And the manufacturer should be held accountable for the resulting wrongful deaths.)
If this were not the case, the manufacturer could just "walk away" from the defective unit, leaving the purchaser with a $5k-$15k television that they can't watch -- it still performs as a TV set, after all, and isn't "defective" with regard to it's primary functionality.
What should happen is that Toshiba should immediately come to terms to compensate the owner for the inconvenience in exchange for an agreement to not operate the set until a replacement is delivered. A rational settlement would be the cost to Toshiba if they had to compensate those expected to suffer because of the continuous operation of the set. So, if there was an expected 0.1% chance of $100,000,000 wrongful death suits, Toshiba should offer $100,000 and a repaired or replaced set in exchange for an agreement to not operate the defective one.
The simple replacement of the set is, IMHO, insufficient.
From the article: Van Rossmann said he was told to keep his TV off to avoid paying a $10,000 fine for "willingly broadcasting a false distress signal."
Personally, I think he should be able to leave the TV on as much as he wants, and Toshiba (the manufacturer) should be liable for the fine, until they replace the set.
It's not like he modified the set, or purchased equipment designed to transmit an emergency signal, and abused it.
Yeah, I almost considered it for my 11 yo daughter, until I saw the price. This should be priced at US$799, if that.
I DO like the concept of a wireless 16:9 wallmountable display with integrated speakers and remote keyboard, though. I'd prefer it more open (perhaps runnung Linux on it wouldn't be too hard to do), cheaper (see above), and not as "kiddie-styled". Of course, there are other devices that fit that niche (and cost the same or more).
So, you agree that Canadians should accept closed inter-provincial borders or give up access to the socialized healthcare their taxes fund, with no recourse to any other source of healthcare?
At issue is the requirement in Ontario, to live in the province permanently in order to obtain the only legal form of health care permitted, even if you pay for it via your taxes.
While some minumum residency requiredment is understandable, before being eligible, the permanent residency requirement to avoid having to repay any and all services received is a sign of a desparate communist regime.
Note that "unnecessary" - most of the time, if you need critical care, you *don't* have to wait in line, no matter what the horror stories say. In your example, the 70% failure rate makes it a borderline case.)
The success rate for AAA repair surgery is 70%, the death rate is 30%. There are no qualified surgeons in Canada who can perform it, AFAIK. It costs around US$50,000. You'd think someone who's paid many times that in the health care insurance portion of their taxes would be entitled to reveive the surgery without delay, regardless of how unlikely it would be to save their life.
One would think that the amount spent on one's health care before having to "wait in line" would at least be as much as one paid via one's taxes toward health care over their working lifetime, especially in a manadatory insurance scheme that one can't avoid. Otherwise you run into the situation where you can't spend money you earned to try to save your own life. I repeat, preventing that is murder.
Oh this is hilarious... I can't help but respond (laughing myself silly)...
As for the Kadr fucks, we would crucify them if we could.
Er, and why exactly can't "you" (i.e. the government)? Like I said, a haven for terrorists.
I have one last comment for you. I know your type, you are twenty something, and know little about the world yet.
Au contraire, mon ami. (Hey, if he thinks I'm French simply because of where I used to live, why spoil the illusion?). I've been around long enough to see the shift toward communisim in Canada: when the social programs are fresh, the paint is new, and you have a budget surplus, it's all good. But, freeloaders, and greedy bureaucrats have sucked the government teat dry, and left the taxpayers holding the debt. I watched this over a course of 37 years. Only after spending 5-1/2 years in the U.S. did I really see just how bad things had become.
...they have a fairly standard hatred of any male named Rene, you French ass pirate...
Funny, my family and I have found ourselves treated far better as foreigners in the U.S. than we ever were as citizens in Canada (yes, by those who know we're foreigners). We've been in Lake Zurich, IL (a suburb of Chicago), Allan, TX, (a suburb of Dallas), and are now outside of Seattle, WA. If anything, people are amazed at how difficult it is for us to become citizens and easy for non-Canadians (this because of the sheer large number of Canadians emigrating to the U.S.).
Everyone pays taxes for services they don't use... The issue is not paying for an unused service (although, if that impoverishes one to the point of not having the money to save their own life, there is a serious problem). The issue is only being able to obtain a service through means that require one to never move from the province one lives or pay an unspecified amount. If one had to pay for services received in the prior 6 months, a year, or other reasonable time frame, even with a small premium, at a rate disclosed when the services were rendered, this would be fine. But, the terms are: you can't buy this elsewhere legally, and if you agree to get it from us, we can charge you whatever we want if you ever leave the province.
...it sounds like I educated your little bastard of a son. I sure as hell paid for his medical care, unless you really think that 130 dollars paid to save his life.
Unlikely. He attend private preschools in the U.S. and for a short while in Canada. The hospital charged me $175 for the visit, and the doctor $30 (geez, this doesn't even cover an ER copay in a U.S. hospital -- how do you expect to get decent doctors and equipment? Oh yes, you have one MRI machine for an entire province, maybe two). I tipped the doctor $100. If they should have asked for more, I don't see that as my problem. In any case, I'm sure the $20k in income taxes I paid to the federal and Ontario governments in 2003 covered any shortfall.
But see, gentle reader, even paying your own way, in spades, isn't enough in Canada: you're perceived as a freeloader if you don't pay for everyone else as well. Personally, I like to pick and choose my charities. With my present income and expenses, I find I can contribute a lot more (around US$200 a month). It sure appears to do a whole lot more good than the taxes I paid in Canada.
This is the attitude that socialism (it's so bad, I call it communism as a "dig") breeds: any one with anything earned is beholden to everyone who earns nothing who then "allow" them to get what they pay for "for free".
Not all socialist nations are as messed up, of course. Some European countries have unemployment insurance programs that supply a portion of one's salary when unemployed. Canadian provinces do too, but, unlike more effective places, do not require one collecting these payments to show up for assigned day labour. Mike Harris tried this while premier of Ontario (rather like a U.S. state governer), and was
I pay taxes for a service I don't use, pay out of pocket for it when I need it. Pay a premium to boot, and get told I'm trying to get something for free.
The Canadian psyche is rather like: "we once gave you a drink of water when you were thirsty and were a penny short to buy it. WE ownz ya, biatch!"
As the system falls appart, you will see people like this, clearly scrabbling like rats for any benefit they can get from a government they elect to rob anyone they can.
The biggest risk to the U.S. is as Canada falls further into decay, not only will skilled Canadians work (and perhaps, if lucky, immigrate to) the U.S., but all the rest will spill over the border. It already is a haven for terrorists: Canadians with ties to al-Qaida and OBL deported from the U.S. on their attempted return to Canada, once repatriated, have become rather celebrated in their "stick it to the U.S." attitude. This paves the way for more militant cells to arise.
Let me get this straight - you think $130 for 20 minutes is a fair price to pay for health care, and you are irate that the government covers it for you. So should the poor just be screwed, then?
Yes, I think $130 is a fair rate for a 20 minute consultation with an ER physician in who's hands my son's life hangs. How much do you value your life and the lives of your family members?
The government does not pay this rate (and, if it did, the taxpayers would, plus the cost of government overhead to administer it). They'd pay around $30. The whole cost of the ER visit (and an eight hour wait) besides the doctor's fee was only $175. I am irate because the government does not provide the service for which my share of taxes earmarked toward health could buy on the free market. They provide far less.
In one instance, an individual who was in a 50%+ tax over some 30 odd years of working (easy to do in Canada on a modest middle class income until about the late '90s), desperately needed an aortic anurysm repair. Never having had dire need for health care service before, the share of tax dollars he paid over those 30 years earmarked for health care could have paid for this surgery several times over in the U.S. Alas, having paid those taxes, he had no funds saved to purchase the surgery he needed. The government denied it, for lack of available surgeons in Canada (no wonder, if they get paid squat), risk of the surgery (the survival rate is around 70% in the hands of the best surgeon in the U.S.), lack of financial benefit to the government (the patient was retired and not earning significant taxable income anymore), and argued it could save more lives if applied elsewhere. So, he died.
For the state to tax supposedly to provide health care, and then deliver less care than could have been paid for via the taxes collected, such that the patient is impoverished to the point of dying, is murder, in my book. Anyone who supports such a system is, at very least, an accessory to murder. Given how sacrosanct socialized health care is in Canada, it's probably fair to say most Canadians thus qualify as murderers or accessories thereto, by this standard.
So should the poor just be screwed, then?
Should we kill one person to save another? Or even several others? If you think, "Yes," then you are playing God. If you think that this is fine in some desperate attempt to maximize lives saved with limited resources, then I hasten to point out that you'd serve society better dead: your organs could be harvested and probably save the lives of quite a few people who need transplants. Do you still think it's a good idea?
The ironic thing is that "the poor" get better care in the U.S. (yes, even those without insurance), than everyone gets in Canada: they at least have a chance to get surgery that does not exist in Canada for lack of skilled surgeons and antequated technology. No American hospital can turn away a critical patient and leave them to suffer or die for lack of funds. All hospitals budget for "charity cases". One won't get the best care money can buy, of course (i.e. a ward room will have to suffice, instead of a private one), but I have observed that the care provided is about on a par with what is standard in Canada for everyone. And, becuause "the rich pay" (well, about 85% of the population has private coverage), there are no "lines" or "waiting lists" for the poor -- at least not to the extent of delays in Canada.
My biggest complaint however, is that government-run health care in Canada is a fraud: much is collected in terms of taxes to fund it, and far less service is delivered than could be purchased with the funds on the free market.
The "cost" of health care has often been described as cheaper in Canada, and thus it is argued that the socialized system is more "efficient", But, this is a comparison between apples and oranges. A better analogy would be a comparison between prime beef and dog food. Yes, dog food is cheaper.
You are not aware of the insidious "Notwithstanding Clause" of the patriated Canadian Constitution, are you?
Basically, it permits the federal governmment or government of any province to override the decisions of the higheest court in the lannd, the Supreme Court of Canada.
So, that charter of rights isn't worth squat when push comes to shove (and it actually matters the most).
No, you just have to agree to give up your card if you ever move out of Ontario.
Wrong, bucko! Believe me, I checked the law on this one.
You don't have to give up a health card if you leave Ontario, though coverage lapses after 6 months. (You are asked to do so, though). However, retaining the card, and corresponding coverage, makes you an Ontario, and thus, Canadian, tax resident. It could be argued that this is fair: keep the coverage, pay the taxes (despite the fact that it's an uncompetative trade for anyone skilled enough to get U.S. employment). Canadian tax residency is something you want to get rid of if you work in the U.S. so, you happily surrender them (and make sure to get a receipt!).
If you do leave before 153 days after obtaining an Ontario health card, you have to reimburse the government for any health care expenses you incurred. That's the law. However, the government can charge whatever rate it wants, and not simply what you would have paid at time of service -- see they add the overhead of their administration of the health care system. I suppose that even this is reasonable, but sleazy: the overhead and costs should be disclosed at time of service. Interestingly, neither is: since the government pays when you use a health card, it is a matter of privacy between the provider and the state what the costs are. Only if you pay yourself, do you know what the charges are, but you still don't know what the overhead of filing under the Ontario Health Act are. When my wife visited an ER, I finally got receipts to submit for foreign insurance reimbursement only after paying $150 for the first page of the invoice, and $10 for each subsequent page for "service charges". Charging for a bill is illegal under Canadian law, but, as you can't sue on a contingeny basis, it was not worth retaining a lawyer to fight the case. It was surreal to provide a Canadian passport as proof of ID to get the invoices. Whatever the law is regarding the privacy of service costs, apparently hospitals are so desperate for funds, they will sell their records "for a price" if they have some assurance the patient isn't likely to complain their privacy has been breached. Bizzare.
The form that you fill out, and sign, to get an Ontario health card does not mention this 153 day figure. It clearly requires you to "intend to reside in Ontario permanently". I clearly had no such intent: I will go where the jobs are, whether within a year, or five, or ten. As it was, it tool about a year before a U.S. offer came my way, unsolicited.
Having signed that form, makes you liable to repay any service you receive, at any rate, if you DO leave. I too, was stunned by this, but repeated Of course, if you were born in Ontario, you are covered implicitly without the need to sign such a form (your parents may have to, though). In my case, I was born in Quebec, so the same onerous terms would apply if I never left Canada, but simply moved "one province west".
In the end, I simply did not get provincial health coverage for the year and a bit we returned to Canada, offered to pay at time of service for the mediocre services we received, and our money was cheerfully accepted. At one hospital, the attending ER physician charged separately, and asked for $30 for his services. I thought this appalling, and instead wrote him a cheque for $130 for the 20 minutes he spent with my son (no wiseass, it didn't "bounce"). At first he tried to refuse the extra, but finally accepted it, after I yelled at him, in frustration, "Damn it, Doctor! If you don't want to accept what you deserve, give it to charity! The government sure doesn't take care of anyone here!!"
If you don't have a health card, not being able to rent videogames is the least of your problems...
It's the other way around, at least if you're a Canadian who's moved to Ontario: to obtain a "Health Card" (yeah, right, as if it'll get me to a decent doctor faster than cash will in the U.S.), you must sign a form agreeing to never leave the province.
< rant on >
Fuck that noise. I'll just get a work visa, a decent job in the U.S. (obeying the immigration and work laws, of course), and real health care for my family. None of this being taxed through the nose for the promise of non-existant "care". Lying, murderous, bastards, them all. (Then again, Canadian politicians always were sleaze).
Odd thing is, if I return (a very real possibility if a green card does not become available, or my American son does not sponsor me -- he's still too young to do so), as a married man, I am oblidged, under Canadian law, "to support my wife in the manner to which she has become accustomed". (Yes, this makes it illegal for husbands to earn less in the future than they ever earn, regardless of the reason). As this is impossible (it being illegal to pay for health care and get it on demand, to which my family has become accustomed), arrest and jail is a theoretical possibility (depending on who the state decides to prosecute under the many laws which effectively make everyone a criminal).
Frankly, I think the appropriate response to a government that would jail one for failing to do something illegal, or for doing that exact same illegal thing (a no win scenario), deserves to have it's henchmen face the business end of a lethal weapon. Preferrably as many such henchmen (I think they try to pass them off as police) as possible, before one falls to them.
The trickier moral dilema is whether one should act in such a manner preemptively, or make a clear martyr by responding with force only defensively.
I would think that if the risk to you increased in a statistically significant manner (what about gallons of glyceryl trinitrate, or an armed nuke, for a hypothetical situation?), it would be fair that it was your business, though I would also grant that it would be your burden to prove that the risk to you was likely, and real.
The problem isn't that your neighbour has explosives -- the problem is that, given what can be observed, they are in serious danger of going off, with little in the way to prevent the explosion from staing in "his yard".
Note: I didn't say "gunpowder". I said "flashpowder", visibly stored unsafely. You know the difference.
Aye. Most Canadians are the most disgusting excuses for humans there are: they support the impoverishment of their fellows via high taxes to fund (among other things) bogus "health care" that is never delivered to those who have been made too poor now to buy it with their own earnings.
"We have to decide who benefits the most (hint: politicians)" and "It's unfair that you can buy health care." are the mantras of the day.
Excuse me?
EXCUSE ME?!
To take my hard earned pay from me, by force, if necessary, that I can't now use to purchase the care to save my own life is murder if I die as a result. It is by that reasoning I call Canadians who support the communist (drop the "socialist" euphamism, already: we see you for the red bastards you are) muderous communist bastards.
To those who argue that this is "to save the most lives with the least resources", I say cut off your head so your organs can save six, seven, or eight dying people. Ahh, you want rules to benefit you and no one else, eh? [Gotta stick in that "eh"].
Hypocrites, as well as murderers.
This Canadian would support a U.S. invasion of Canada a la Iraq with great joy. I firmly believe the next serious terrorist threat will come from north of the 49th parallel.
For all the shit that there's in the U.S. it remains a paradise by comparison.
By that reasoning why should anyone with less than 50% support get more than 50% representation? Gee, I guess we should have debates with one or no candidates.
And, just how do you measure "support", anyway?
The best idea I can come up with is being on the ballot.
I've been looking for a standalone device to let me transfer several hundred VHS tapes to DVD so they take up less space (without tying up a computer) or require constant video capture fiddling.
The tricky bit is that quite a few of those several hundred VHS tapes are commercial movies, thus, with Macrovision. So, I'll probably need a Macrovision killer.
I have no desire to make a copy and redistribute it. I DO want to exercise my fair use and transfer the content to a more convenient format, and put the original VHS tapes in archival storage. I suppose I could eventially code them as DivX and save them on a home server, but I'd still like a backup format other than tape.
...letting a user use emacs (for instance) as an MSN messenger client.
Radio shock Jock Howard Stern has a segment where he encourages pairs of sisters to compete (usually for cosmetic surgery like breast augmentation), by answering questions - wrong answers mean one has to successively disrobe the other until they are both naked, and then engage in fondling each other. The pseudo-incenstuous spoof is called "It's just wrong!".
But we really need a entire legal system aimed at controlling those at the top of the hierarchy, the elite.
You've got one. It's called the Second Ammendment. Given that the U.S. has a poor record of fighting a guerrela (sp?) war, if enough people are equally pissed off at the powers that be, sucessfull "enforcement" might not be that far-fetched.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
The manufacturer warrants the product and thus should be responsible for those deaths.
The manufacturer should either not provide a blanket warranty or enter into an agreement so the owner does not operate the equipment until it is replaced.
And, if it is a "Class A" device, the manufacturer warrants that it will not interfere in a residential environment. (Though, many electronic devices sold for residential use are "Class B", requiring the operator to take corrective action if they interfere, and letting the manufacturer off the hook. Yes, this is a simplification)
I stand by my position: the manufacturer should be liable by virtue of their likely warranty that this won't happen. Yes, even if people die, because the device is operated. (And the manufacturer should be held accountable for the resulting wrongful deaths.)
If this were not the case, the manufacturer could just "walk away" from the defective unit, leaving the purchaser with a $5k-$15k television that they can't watch -- it still performs as a TV set, after all, and isn't "defective" with regard to it's primary functionality.
What should happen is that Toshiba should immediately come to terms to compensate the owner for the inconvenience in exchange for an agreement to not operate the set until a replacement is delivered. A rational settlement would be the cost to Toshiba if they had to compensate those expected to suffer because of the continuous operation of the set. So, if there was an expected 0.1% chance of $100,000,000 wrongful death suits, Toshiba should offer $100,000 and a repaired or replaced set in exchange for an agreement to not operate the defective one.
The simple replacement of the set is, IMHO, insufficient.
Personally, I think he should be able to leave the TV on as much as he wants, and Toshiba (the manufacturer) should be liable for the fine, until they replace the set.
It's not like he modified the set, or purchased equipment designed to transmit an emergency signal, and abused it.
But, that's just my view.
I'm quite willing to pay for style (having bought a B&O Beosystem 5500 in the 1980s), but not this much for this particular style.
I DO want the option of running a Linux distro on it, so custom hardware is a concern.
I DO like the concept of a wireless 16:9 wallmountable display with integrated speakers and remote keyboard, though. I'd prefer it more open (perhaps runnung Linux on it wouldn't be too hard to do), cheaper (see above), and not as "kiddie-styled". Of course, there are other devices that fit that niche (and cost the same or more).
At issue is the requirement in Ontario, to live in the province permanently in order to obtain the only legal form of health care permitted, even if you pay for it via your taxes.
While some minumum residency requiredment is understandable, before being eligible, the permanent residency requirement to avoid having to repay any and all services received is a sign of a desparate communist regime.
Most moderaters are Americans :-).
Note that "unnecessary" - most of the time, if you need critical care, you *don't* have to wait in line, no matter what the horror stories say. In your example, the 70% failure rate makes it a borderline case.)
The success rate for AAA repair surgery is 70%, the death rate is 30%. There are no qualified surgeons in Canada who can perform it, AFAIK. It costs around US$50,000. You'd think someone who's paid many times that in the health care insurance portion of their taxes would be entitled to reveive the surgery without delay, regardless of how unlikely it would be to save their life.
One would think that the amount spent on one's health care before having to "wait in line" would at least be as much as one paid via one's taxes toward health care over their working lifetime, especially in a manadatory insurance scheme that one can't avoid. Otherwise you run into the situation where you can't spend money you earned to try to save your own life. I repeat, preventing that is murder.
In other words: "you pay nothing (other than high taxes) and we give you nothing".
There was a shortage of 1400 doctors in Metro Toronto alone, in 2003: all the competent ones leave to earn a decent wage in the U.S.
The wait for ostheoarthritic surgery is four years, during which time many patients are non-ambulatory (they can't walk without help).
Most patients referred to a cardiac specialist die before the get an appointment.
To be covered, you must agree to never move from the province you live in (at least that's the case for Ontario).
As for the Kadr fucks, we would crucify them if we could.
Er, and why exactly can't "you" (i.e. the government)? Like I said, a haven for terrorists.
I have one last comment for you. I know your type, you are twenty something, and know little about the world yet.
Au contraire, mon ami. (Hey, if he thinks I'm French simply because of where I used to live, why spoil the illusion?). I've been around long enough to see the shift toward communisim in Canada: when the social programs are fresh, the paint is new, and you have a budget surplus, it's all good. But, freeloaders, and greedy bureaucrats have sucked the government teat dry, and left the taxpayers holding the debt. I watched this over a course of 37 years. Only after spending 5-1/2 years in the U.S. did I really see just how bad things had become.
Funny, my family and I have found ourselves treated far better as foreigners in the U.S. than we ever were as citizens in Canada (yes, by those who know we're foreigners). We've been in Lake Zurich, IL (a suburb of Chicago), Allan, TX, (a suburb of Dallas), and are now outside of Seattle, WA. If anything, people are amazed at how difficult it is for us to become citizens and easy for non-Canadians (this because of the sheer large number of Canadians emigrating to the U.S.).
Everyone pays taxes for services they don't use... The issue is not paying for an unused service (although, if that impoverishes one to the point of not having the money to save their own life, there is a serious problem). The issue is only being able to obtain a service through means that require one to never move from the province one lives or pay an unspecified amount. If one had to pay for services received in the prior 6 months, a year, or other reasonable time frame, even with a small premium, at a rate disclosed when the services were rendered, this would be fine. But, the terms are: you can't buy this elsewhere legally, and if you agree to get it from us, we can charge you whatever we want if you ever leave the province.
Unlikely. He attend private preschools in the U.S. and for a short while in Canada. The hospital charged me $175 for the visit, and the doctor $30 (geez, this doesn't even cover an ER copay in a U.S. hospital -- how do you expect to get decent doctors and equipment? Oh yes, you have one MRI machine for an entire province, maybe two). I tipped the doctor $100. If they should have asked for more, I don't see that as my problem. In any case, I'm sure the $20k in income taxes I paid to the federal and Ontario governments in 2003 covered any shortfall.
But see, gentle reader, even paying your own way, in spades, isn't enough in Canada: you're perceived as a freeloader if you don't pay for everyone else as well. Personally, I like to pick and choose my charities. With my present income and expenses, I find I can contribute a lot more (around US$200 a month). It sure appears to do a whole lot more good than the taxes I paid in Canada.
This is the attitude that socialism (it's so bad, I call it communism as a "dig") breeds: any one with anything earned is beholden to everyone who earns nothing who then "allow" them to get what they pay for "for free".
Not all socialist nations are as messed up, of course. Some European countries have unemployment insurance programs that supply a portion of one's salary when unemployed. Canadian provinces do too, but, unlike more effective places, do not require one collecting these payments to show up for assigned day labour. Mike Harris tried this while premier of Ontario (rather like a U.S. state governer), and was
I pay taxes for a service I don't use, pay out of pocket for it when I need it. Pay a premium to boot, and get told I'm trying to get something for free.
The Canadian psyche is rather like: "we once gave you a drink of water when you were thirsty and were a penny short to buy it. WE ownz ya, biatch!"
As the system falls appart, you will see people like this, clearly scrabbling like rats for any benefit they can get from a government they elect to rob anyone they can.
The biggest risk to the U.S. is as Canada falls further into decay, not only will skilled Canadians work (and perhaps, if lucky, immigrate to) the U.S., but all the rest will spill over the border. It already is a haven for terrorists: Canadians with ties to al-Qaida and OBL deported from the U.S. on their attempted return to Canada, once repatriated, have become rather celebrated in their "stick it to the U.S." attitude. This paves the way for more militant cells to arise.
Yes, I think $130 is a fair rate for a 20 minute consultation with an ER physician in who's hands my son's life hangs. How much do you value your life and the lives of your family members?
The government does not pay this rate (and, if it did, the taxpayers would, plus the cost of government overhead to administer it). They'd pay around $30. The whole cost of the ER visit (and an eight hour wait) besides the doctor's fee was only $175. I am irate because the government does not provide the service for which my share of taxes earmarked toward health could buy on the free market. They provide far less.
In one instance, an individual who was in a 50%+ tax over some 30 odd years of working (easy to do in Canada on a modest middle class income until about the late '90s), desperately needed an aortic anurysm repair. Never having had dire need for health care service before, the share of tax dollars he paid over those 30 years earmarked for health care could have paid for this surgery several times over in the U.S. Alas, having paid those taxes, he had no funds saved to purchase the surgery he needed. The government denied it, for lack of available surgeons in Canada (no wonder, if they get paid squat), risk of the surgery (the survival rate is around 70% in the hands of the best surgeon in the U.S.), lack of financial benefit to the government (the patient was retired and not earning significant taxable income anymore), and argued it could save more lives if applied elsewhere. So, he died.
For the state to tax supposedly to provide health care, and then deliver less care than could have been paid for via the taxes collected, such that the patient is impoverished to the point of dying, is murder, in my book. Anyone who supports such a system is, at very least, an accessory to murder. Given how sacrosanct socialized health care is in Canada, it's probably fair to say most Canadians thus qualify as murderers or accessories thereto, by this standard.
So should the poor just be screwed, then?
Should we kill one person to save another? Or even several others? If you think, "Yes," then you are playing God. If you think that this is fine in some desperate attempt to maximize lives saved with limited resources, then I hasten to point out that you'd serve society better dead: your organs could be harvested and probably save the lives of quite a few people who need transplants. Do you still think it's a good idea?
The ironic thing is that "the poor" get better care in the U.S. (yes, even those without insurance), than everyone gets in Canada: they at least have a chance to get surgery that does not exist in Canada for lack of skilled surgeons and antequated technology. No American hospital can turn away a critical patient and leave them to suffer or die for lack of funds. All hospitals budget for "charity cases". One won't get the best care money can buy, of course (i.e. a ward room will have to suffice, instead of a private one), but I have observed that the care provided is about on a par with what is standard in Canada for everyone. And, becuause "the rich pay" (well, about 85% of the population has private coverage), there are no "lines" or "waiting lists" for the poor -- at least not to the extent of delays in Canada.
My biggest complaint however, is that government-run health care in Canada is a fraud: much is collected in terms of taxes to fund it, and far less service is delivered than could be purchased with the funds on the free market.
The "cost" of health care has often been described as cheaper in Canada, and thus it is argued that the socialized system is more "efficient", But, this is a comparison between apples and oranges. A better analogy would be a comparison between prime beef and dog food. Yes, dog food is cheaper.
Canadia
Basically, it permits the federal governmment or government of any province to override the decisions of the higheest court in the lannd, the Supreme Court of Canada.
So, that charter of rights isn't worth squat when push comes to shove (and it actually matters the most).
Yes.
I damn well discriminate.
I discriminate against thieves, liars and murderers.
I discriminate against governments that tax to provide promised benifits they do not deliver.
I particularly discriminate against communists, hence my hatred of Canadians who support the status quo.
I also discriminate against those who judge others on the basis of race,
or religeon,
or their sexual orientation,
or age, diminshed mental capacity, or physical infirmity.
If it is a crime of bigotry to expose the criminal psyche that has pervaded a society, then I am guilty as charged.
I do not, however, hide, as an Anonymous Coward.
subject says it all.
Wrong, bucko! Believe me, I checked the law on this one.
You don't have to give up a health card if you leave Ontario, though coverage lapses after 6 months. (You are asked to do so, though). However, retaining the card, and corresponding coverage, makes you an Ontario, and thus, Canadian, tax resident. It could be argued that this is fair: keep the coverage, pay the taxes (despite the fact that it's an uncompetative trade for anyone skilled enough to get U.S. employment). Canadian tax residency is something you want to get rid of if you work in the U.S. so, you happily surrender them (and make sure to get a receipt!).
If you do leave before 153 days after obtaining an Ontario health card, you have to reimburse the government for any health care expenses you incurred. That's the law. However, the government can charge whatever rate it wants, and not simply what you would have paid at time of service -- see they add the overhead of their administration of the health care system. I suppose that even this is reasonable, but sleazy: the overhead and costs should be disclosed at time of service. Interestingly, neither is: since the government pays when you use a health card, it is a matter of privacy between the provider and the state what the costs are. Only if you pay yourself, do you know what the charges are, but you still don't know what the overhead of filing under the Ontario Health Act are. When my wife visited an ER, I finally got receipts to submit for foreign insurance reimbursement only after paying $150 for the first page of the invoice, and $10 for each subsequent page for "service charges". Charging for a bill is illegal under Canadian law, but, as you can't sue on a contingeny basis, it was not worth retaining a lawyer to fight the case. It was surreal to provide a Canadian passport as proof of ID to get the invoices. Whatever the law is regarding the privacy of service costs, apparently hospitals are so desperate for funds, they will sell their records "for a price" if they have some assurance the patient isn't likely to complain their privacy has been breached. Bizzare.
The form that you fill out, and sign, to get an Ontario health card does not mention this 153 day figure. It clearly requires you to "intend to reside in Ontario permanently". I clearly had no such intent: I will go where the jobs are, whether within a year, or five, or ten. As it was, it tool about a year before a U.S. offer came my way, unsolicited.
Having signed that form, makes you liable to repay any service you receive, at any rate, if you DO leave. I too, was stunned by this, but repeated Of course, if you were born in Ontario, you are covered implicitly without the need to sign such a form (your parents may have to, though). In my case, I was born in Quebec, so the same onerous terms would apply if I never left Canada, but simply moved "one province west".
In the end, I simply did not get provincial health coverage for the year and a bit we returned to Canada, offered to pay at time of service for the mediocre services we received, and our money was cheerfully accepted. At one hospital, the attending ER physician charged separately, and asked for $30 for his services. I thought this appalling, and instead wrote him a cheque for $130 for the 20 minutes he spent with my son (no wiseass, it didn't "bounce"). At first he tried to refuse the extra, but finally accepted it, after I yelled at him, in frustration, "Damn it, Doctor! If you don't want to accept what you deserve, give it to charity! The government sure doesn't take care of anyone here!!"
It's the other way around, at least if you're a Canadian who's moved to Ontario: to obtain a "Health Card" (yeah, right, as if it'll get me to a decent doctor faster than cash will in the U.S.), you must sign a form agreeing to never leave the province.
< rant on >
Fuck that noise. I'll just get a work visa, a decent job in the U.S. (obeying the immigration and work laws, of course), and real health care for my family. None of this being taxed through the nose for the promise of non-existant "care". Lying, murderous, bastards, them all. (Then again, Canadian politicians always were sleaze).
Odd thing is, if I return (a very real possibility if a green card does not become available, or my American son does not sponsor me -- he's still too young to do so), as a married man, I am oblidged, under Canadian law, "to support my wife in the manner to which she has become accustomed". (Yes, this makes it illegal for husbands to earn less in the future than they ever earn, regardless of the reason). As this is impossible (it being illegal to pay for health care and get it on demand, to which my family has become accustomed), arrest and jail is a theoretical possibility (depending on who the state decides to prosecute under the many laws which effectively make everyone a criminal).
Frankly, I think the appropriate response to a government that would jail one for failing to do something illegal, or for doing that exact same illegal thing (a no win scenario), deserves to have it's henchmen face the business end of a lethal weapon. Preferrably as many such henchmen (I think they try to pass them off as police) as possible, before one falls to them.
The trickier moral dilema is whether one should act in such a manner preemptively, or make a clear martyr by responding with force only defensively.
The problem isn't that your neighbour has explosives -- the problem is that, given what can be observed, they are in serious danger of going off, with little in the way to prevent the explosion from staing in "his yard".
Note: I didn't say "gunpowder". I said "flashpowder", visibly stored unsafely. You know the difference.
So, you'd be O.K. with someone having 1000 lbs. of flash powder on the lot beside yours, stored halphazarly?
M'k.
Wesley Crusher was annoying as hell. I'm presuming this was good acting on Wil Wheaton's part.
Chattel, not cattle. As in "movable property".
"We have to decide who benefits the most (hint: politicians)" and "It's unfair that you can buy health care." are the mantras of the day.
Excuse me?
EXCUSE ME?!
To take my hard earned pay from me, by force, if necessary, that I can't now use to purchase the care to save my own life is murder if I die as a result. It is by that reasoning I call Canadians who support the communist (drop the "socialist" euphamism, already: we see you for the red bastards you are) muderous communist bastards.
To those who argue that this is "to save the most lives with the least resources", I say cut off your head so your organs can save six, seven, or eight dying people. Ahh, you want rules to benefit you and no one else, eh? [Gotta stick in that "eh"].
Hypocrites, as well as murderers.
This Canadian would support a U.S. invasion of Canada a la Iraq with great joy. I firmly believe the next serious terrorist threat will come from north of the 49th parallel.
For all the shit that there's in the U.S. it remains a paradise by comparison.
And, just how do you measure "support", anyway?
The best idea I can come up with is being on the ballot.
The tricky bit is that quite a few of those several hundred VHS tapes are commercial movies, thus, with Macrovision. So, I'll probably need a Macrovision killer.
I have no desire to make a copy and redistribute it. I DO want to exercise my fair use and transfer the content to a more convenient format, and put the original VHS tapes in archival storage. I suppose I could eventially code them as DivX and save them on a home server, but I'd still like a backup format other than tape.
Radio shock Jock Howard Stern has a segment where he encourages pairs of sisters to compete (usually for cosmetic surgery like breast augmentation), by answering questions - wrong answers mean one has to successively disrobe the other until they are both naked, and then engage in fondling each other. The pseudo-incenstuous spoof is called "It's just wrong!".
This too, deserves that moniker.
You've got one. It's called the Second Ammendment. Given that the U.S. has a poor record of fighting a guerrela (sp?) war, if enough people are equally pissed off at the powers that be, sucessfull "enforcement" might not be that far-fetched.