Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Is There A Trial Lawyer In The House?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: shagdrum

The only "crisis" in health care in this country is that doctors are paid too little. (Also they've come up with nothing to help that poor Dennis Kucinich.)

But the Democratic Party treats doctors like they're Klan members. They wail about how much doctors are paid and celebrate the trial lawyers who do absolutely nothing to make society better, but swoop in and steal from the most valuable members of society.

Maybe doctors could get the Democrats to like them if they started suing their patients.

It's only a matter of time before the best and brightest students forget about medical school and go to law school instead. How long can a society based on suing the productive last?

You can make 30 times as much money as doctors by becoming a trial lawyer suing doctors. You need no skills, no superior board scores, no decade of training and no sleepless residency. But you must have the morals of a drug dealer. (And the bank wire transfer number to the Democratic National Committee.)

The editors of The New York Times have been engaging in a spirited debate with their readers over whether doctors are wildly overpaid or just hugely overpaid. The results of this debate are available on TimeSelect, for just $49.95.

"Many health care economists," the Times editorialized, say the partisan wrangling over health care masks a bigger problem: "the relatively high salaries paid to American doctors."

Citing the Rand Corp., the Times noted that doctors in the U.S. "earn two to three times as much as they do in other industrialized countries." American doctors earn about $200,000 to $300,000 a year, while European doctors make $60,000 to $120,000. Why, that's barely enough for Muslim doctors in Britain to buy plastic explosives to blow up airplanes!

How much does Pinch Sulzberger make for driving The New York Times stock to an all-time low? Probably a lot more than your podiatrist.

In college, my roommate was in the chemistry lab Friday and Saturday nights while I was dancing on tables at the Chapter House. A few years later, she was working 20-hour days as a resident at Mount Sinai doing liver transplants while I was frequenting popular Upper East Side drinking establishments. She was going to Johns Hopkins for yet more medical training while I was skiing and following the Grateful Dead. Now she vacations in places like Rwanda and Darfur with Doctors Without Borders while I'm going to Paris.

(Has anyone else noticed the nonexistence of a charitable organization known as "Lawyers Without Borders"?)

She makes $380 for an emergency appendectomy, or one-ten-thousandth of what John Edwards made suing doctors like her, and one-fourth of what John Edwards' hairdresser makes for a single shag cut.

Edwards made $30 million bringing nonsense lawsuits based on junk science against doctors. To defend themselves from parasites like Edwards, doctors now pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance every year.

But as the Times would note, doctors in Burkina Faso only get $25 and one goat per year.

As long as we're studying the health care systems of various socialist countries, are we allowed to notice that doctors in these other countries aren't constantly being sued by bottom-feeding trial lawyers stealing one-third of the income of people performing useful work like saving lives?

But the Democrats (and Fred Thompson) refuse to enact tort reform legislation to rein in these charlatans. After teachers and welfare recipients, the Democrats' most prized constituency is trial lawyers. The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor.

Doctors graduate at the top of their classes at college and then spend nearly a decade in grueling work at medical schools. Most doctors don't make a dime until they're in their early 30s, just in time to start paying off their six-figure student loans by saving people's lives. They have 10 times the IQ of trial lawyers and 1,000 times the character.

Yeah, let's go after those guys. On to nuns next!

But Times' readers responded to the editorial about doctors being overpaid with a slew of indignant letters -- not at the Times for making such an idiotic argument, but at doctors who earn an average of $200,000 per year. Letter writers praised the free medical care in places like Spain. ("Nightmare" in the Ann Coulter dictionary is defined as "having a medical emergency in Spain.")

One letter-writer proposed helping doctors by having the government take over another aspect of the economy -- the cost of medical education:

"If we are to restructure the system by which we pay doctors to match Europe, which seems prudent as well as inevitable, we must also finance education as Europeans do, by using state dollars to finance the full or majority cost of higher education, including professional school."

And then to reduce the cost of medical school, the government could finance "the full or majority cost" of construction costs of medical schools, and "the full or majority cost" of the trucks that bring the cement to the construction site and the "the full or majority cost" of coffee that the truck drivers drink while hauling the cement and ... it makes my head hurt.

I may have to see a doctor about this. I should probably get on the waiting list now in case Hillary gets elected.

That's how liberals think: To fix an industry bedeviled by government controls, we'll spread the coercion to yet more industries!

The only sane letter on the matter, I'm happy to report, came from the charming town of New Canaan, Conn., which means that I am not the only normal person who still reads the Times. Ray Groves wrote:

"Last week, I had the annual checkup for my 2000 Taurus. I paid $95 per hour for much needed body work. Next month, when I have my own annual physical, I expect and hope to pay a much higher rate to my primary care internist, who has spent a significant portion of his life training to achieve his position of responsibility."

There is nothing more to say.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Well even after saying all that a lot of doctors aren't geniuses or miracle workers.
I have a friend who wiped out on a Harley and almost lost his leg. The doctors saved it but he had to have operations redone 2 or 3 times because the first doctor did a sloppy job.
He lost 2 years of work as well as his house and other stuff.

Another guy I know idiotically stuck his hand into the inlet of a running dust collector instead of turning it off first.
The doctors were able to save his hand and fingers but he's had to have numerous operations on his wrist because they didn't do a good job the first time.
I suppose it depends on how you define malpractice.
It's always dangerous going into the hospital because you may come out worse than going in just because of things like medical professionals being sloppy and not washing their hands and spreading diseases,
which not surprisingly are easier to find in hospitals.
If that's not malpractice on the most basic level I don't know what is.
There are compitent and incompitent doctors just as there are lawyers and people working in every field.
Doctors get paid less in countries with socialized medicine but they and hospitals get paid promptly for every patient they see. They don't have to chase after people with no insurance and write off people who can't pay.
With the US for profit medical system there is and inherent conflict of interest and great incentive to deny people care that they need and thought they were covered for.
Since the US has 50% of the worlds lawyers for only 4% of it's population they all want to make a lot of money and lawsuits are the way to go.
People always want to blame others for their misfortune instead of accepting those most responsible for their predicament- mainly themselves.
Lawyers feed on this and everybody critisizes them until they need one.
Ann Coulter is a demagougue and paints doctors as noble saints who can do no wrong but nowhere even concedes that being people like us they are flawed and sometimes do stupid things and less than they could.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Doctors get paid less in countries with socialized medicine but they and hospitals get paid promptly for every patient they see. They don't have to chase after people with no insurance and write off people who can't pay.
With the US for profit medical system there is and inherent conflict of interest and great incentive to deny people care that they need and thought they were covered for.

If it weren't for profit, we wouldn't have the advances in medicine that we have today. The United States is behind that, and behind the United States is free enterprise. Look at all the wonderdrugs on the market. Guess what percentage of them are produced by the government? FOUR percent. The rest are made or invented by companies seeking a profit. Whatever anecdotal examples you come up with, and I know there are a lot of them, there is still no comparison between the private sector and the government. NONE. Anytime you feel squirrely about that, just compare these two cars:

Guess which one was made by the government.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Love the red car....

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Yes as Winston Churchil once said
"Democracy is the worst possible system,
compared to all the other systems"
This applies to free enterprize also.
The US is the only leading industrialized country
that doesn't have some kind of universal health care.
Yes there have been fabulous advances in medicine here
and a few dud's such as phen-phen and other drugs sold overzealously by companies wanting to make a tremendous profit.
Vioxx was oversold as a replacement for aspirin and tylenol for every little ache and pain but turned out to greatly increase the risk of heart attack and be useful for a much smaller market.
The makers of Oxycontin greatly downplayed the dangers of their super drugstore heroin like painkiller and have had to pay high fines for their omissions.
"Greed is Good" as Gecko said in Wall Street and that's true to a certain extent.
The promise of great riches is a highly motivating factor.
But it does lead to haste and recklessness and omission
and other sins.
The US medical system offers the best care in the world for those who can afford it but much less so for those not as fortunate.
Drug companies would still resarch and develop new drugs even if they made half as much money as they do now.
A guy I went to school with now runs the largest drug manufacturing company in Canada.
He didn't invent anything new and just bought the rights to exhisting drugs and reformulated some of them into time release versions on the premise it's better to take 1 pill a day than one every 4 hours especially if you're old and liable to forget if you took one 4 hours ago.
He has 1600 employees and revenues of about 1 Billion dollars a year and has accumulated a personal wealth of over 500 million in 10 years.
We need a mix of the best from both types of systems without the shortcomings of either.

As an aside Ann Coulter is a lawyer herself so when she critisizes bottom feeding sleazeball attorneys we should all know where she's coming from.
It takes one to know one....
Some people love to fire up the great unwashed masses and focus attention on themselves with outrageous provocative
opinions that stretch the truth and omit inconvenient facts.
But at least she says things that help stir the debate

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

He lost 2 years of work as well as his house and other stuff.

Yet he didn't wind up dead... or losing the leg.
So I guess the doctor wasn't so bad...

Quote:

The doctors were able to save his hand and fingers but he's had to have numerous operations on his wrist because they didn't do a good job the first time.

Bold print for emphasis.
And no, they aren't miracle workers. They also aren't mechanics. We all don't roll off an assembly line, every patient is profoundly different from the last. Your friends tend to blame the doctor. It's possible they screwed. But it's even more likely that your friend didn't follow the prescribed after care OR their body was a unique situation which in that case required those repeat visits. Sometimes they CAN NOT get it all done on the first shot. Some times they need to see how it heals. And, yes, sometimes, they make human error.

Quote:

It's always dangerous going into the hospital because you may come out worse than going in just because of things like medical professionals being sloppy and not washing their hands and spreading diseases, which not surprisingly are easier to find in hospitals.

And it's even more dangerous to sit in your car outside the hospital with a gunshot wound, a brain tumor, a pregnancy, or a gapping wound in your arm.

Quote:

If that's not malpractice on the most basic level I don't know what is.

Most doctors don't forget to wash their hands. But one of the issues with tort reform regarding medicine isn't simply the number of lawsuits, it's the amount of awards.

Sometimes mistakes are made. But is that inconvenience worth $10k or $500,000. And when the problems are outside the fault of the doctor, they still get sued as well.

Quote:

Doctors get paid less in countries with socialized medicine but they and hospitals get paid promptly for every patient they see.

Actually it's usually because of government price caps. But it's for that very reason why all the really excellent European doctors complete their training in Europe and then move to America, to partake in the free market system.

The Europeans pay for their education through their socialist system and then they move to America to get paid what they are worth and earn respect.

Quote:

With the US for profit medical system there is and inherent conflict of interest and great incentive to deny people care that they need and thought they were covered for.

You base this statement on what?
It's the very profit motive that means you can get emergency surgery within a couple days in America while it can take 18 weeks in England.

Quote:

Ann Coulter is a demagougue and paints doctors as noble saints who can do no wrong but nowhere even concedes that being people like us they are flawed and sometimes do stupid things and less than they could.

She didn't say they were God-like. But they are overwhelmingly dedicated professionals who have spent eight years in college, 4 years in residency, and usually even more time learning their specialty. It goes without saying that someone so specialized should earn more. And in this article, Coulter points out that trial lawyers often earn MORE that doctors yet there is little outrage. No outrage despite the fact trial lawyers rarely contribute anything to society. In fact, the only thing they appear to contribute to are Democrat candidates.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Yes as Winston Churchil once said
"Democracy is the worst possible system,
compared to all the other systems"
This applies to free enterprize also.
The US is the only leading industrialized country
that doesn't have some kind of universal health care.
Yes there have been fabulous advances in medicine here
and a few dud's such as phen-phen and other drugs sold overzealously by companies wanting to make a tremendous profit.
Vioxx was oversold as a replacement for aspirin and tylenol for every little ache and pain but turned out to greatly increase the risk of heart attack and be useful for a much smaller market.
The makers of Oxycontin greatly downplayed the dangers of their super drugstore heroin like painkiller and have had to pay high fines for their omissions.
"Greed is Good" as Gecko said in Wall Street and that's true to a certain extent.
The promise of great riches is a highly motivating factor.
But it does lead to haste and recklessness and omission
and other sins.
The US medical system offers the best care in the world for those who can afford it but much less so for those not as fortunate.
Drug companies would still resarch and develop new drugs even if they made half as much money as they do now.
A guy I went to school with now runs the largest drug manufacturing company in Canada.
He didn't invent anything new and just bought the rights to exhisting drugs and reformulated some of them into time release versions on the premise it's better to take 1 pill a day than one every 4 hours especially if you're old and liable to forget if you took one 4 hours ago.
He has 1600 employees and revenues of about 1 Billion dollars a year and has accumulated a personal wealth of over 500 million in 10 years.
We need a mix of the best from both types of systems without the shortcomings of either.

As an aside Ann Coulter is a lawyer herself so when she critisizes bottom feeding sleazeball attorneys we should all know where she's coming from.
It takes one to know one....
Some people love to fire up the great unwashed masses and focus attention on themselves with outrageous provocative
opinions that stretch the truth and omit inconvenient facts.
But at least she says things that help stir the debate

Nobody does that last part better than Democrats spurting forth their bilge about "47 million uninsured" which, by the way, is FALSE and has already been debunked on this forum. It's easy for you to attack Ann Coulter personally, but you have yet to undermine her arguments and facts. Spewing anecdotal tragedies does not advance your argument. If you want to deal in facts, fine, but you're doing nothing but venturing talking points so far.

The US is the only industrialized country that doesn't have some kind of universal health care, yeah, so what? Then how come people like the King of Jordan or Archbishop Desmond Tutu and a slew of other world leaders ALWAYS COME HERE for their health care? Even Michael Moore did his weight loss at a clinic in FLORIDA, the hypocrite.

Yeah, yeah, I know, US healthcare is great "for those who can afford it." Who can't afford it right now in this country? Are you talking about frivolous visits to the emergency room to remove a hangnail, or are you talking about gunshot wounds or car accident victims? Because doctors are honor bound to treat emergencies REGARDLESS of the patient's ability to pay. In fact, I want my doctor to make a lot of money because I don't want him thinking about not treating me someday for a catastrophic injury because, well, the archbishop of whatever is on the hospital bed next to me and he's got more cash available.

And if you're going to quote Churchill, let's see a link complete with context. And I'm pretty sure he didn't say "and this applies to free enterprize [sic] also." So that must have been your wording. PROOF PLEASE?!?!?

If you want to break down the real, hard numbers of who can and can't afford healthcare in this country, let's do it. Otherwise stop the meaningless rhetoric.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Yes as Winston Churchil once said
"Democracy is the worst possible system,
compared to all the other systems"

He said ""Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others." How can you possibly get such a quote so completely and fundamentally wrong.

Quote:

This applies to free enterprize also.

Yeah, FREE ENTERPRISE is the worst for of economics EXCEPT for all the others.

Do you get the point he was making?

The rest of your post is foolish.

Quote:

The US medical system offers the best care in the world for those who can afford it but much less so for those not as fortunate.

Quote:

Drug companies would still resarch and develop new drugs even if they made half as much money as they do now.

You base this bold claim on what exactly? Most drugs that are researched never come to market. The few that do make it to market have to fund ALL of the research. And that's a very expensive process.

Quote:

As an aside Ann Coulter is a lawyer herself so when she critisizes bottom feeding sleazeball attorneys we should all know where she's coming from.
It takes one to know one....

Do you have some example of Ann Coulter ever being a "bottom feeding sleazeball attorney" or are you just making that up too? She did work as a lawyer, but do you have examples of her representing anything despicable?

To the best of my knowledge, she briefly worked for a New York corporate law firm, but for the most part she worked as a law clerk and on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Strong words about Mrs. Coulter...
Can you back them up?? Nope you can't. Long on claims, short on facts, as is every argument you make here! What facts has she "ommitted" that would change the nature of the arguement? How has she mischaracterized anything? The fact is she does extremely well the one thing lawyers are good at; research! Try to find flaws in her facts, you can't. We have seen how you misquoted the great Winston Churchill, where has she made such a sloppy mistake? The reason people don't like her is because she is bluntly accurate, enjoys being politically incorrect and has a great sense of humor. Some try to compare her to Michael Moore, but Moore is lazy and is a proven liar when it comes to his research, Coulter isn't. In fact this can be proven by the methods used by their enemies to attack them. Moore gets called time after time for lying and making up/distorting the facts to support his own bias views. Coulter is criticized for having a bias and being a "bitch" (they can't argue her facts or logic).

I would say just in this thread, you have shot your credibilty here. Blatantly misquoting Churchill to achieve your own ends...
Coulter doesn't do that and doesn't have to.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Coulter called Edwards a "

got" to the gasps and delight of her audience. This certainly qualifies her as a sleazy person and drags the national debate into the gutter.
It's also a slap in the face to all the hard working gay Republicans
who seem to turn up in the papers, Senator Craig being the latest example.
Coulter was trying to say the Democrats are weak willed and lack
fortitude but I suppose being a woman didn't want to call them "pussies" or "wooses"
Her answer to the islamic terrorists is to invade muslim countries,
kill their leaders and have them convert to christianity at the barrel of a gun.
This put's her on the same level as the religious extremists and other hateful people and should marginalize her views.
Even Bush's strongest critics don't resort to calling him names in public.
Wealthy people come to this country for medical treatment because it's the best that money can buy, no arguement there.
I certainly wouldn't want to get care in some second or third world country.
I have 100 employees and earn more than highly paid doctors in this country so I do have a vested interest in Republican policies.
They love winners and hate losers.
The strong rule the weak and that's how it's always been
and we'll never change that.
Well, I think I'll go back into the heated pool for a while....

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Coulter called Edwards a "

got" to the gasps and delight of her audience. This certainly qualifies her as a sleazy person and drags the national debate into the gutter.

Actually she didn't call him that. She was making a topical joke, more about the treatment of Isaah Washington, the vilified actor who was on the TV show Gray's Anatomy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you didn't know the actual context of the joke, but were simply repeating what you'd heard. The ommision of context is tool of deception.

Quote:

It's also a slap in the face to all the hard working gay Republicans
who seem to turn up in the papers, Senator Craig being the latest example.

I'd prefer to think that the "hard working homosexual Republicans" have little to do with charges Larry Craig plead to.

But if you want to give a "slap in the face" criminal or irresponsible people, go right ahead.

Quote:

Coulter was trying to say the Democrats are weak willed and lack
fortitude but I suppose being a woman didn't want to call them "pussies" or "wooses"

No, the joke was a little bit more clever than that.

Quote:

Her answer to the islamic terrorists is to invade muslim countries,
kill their leaders and have them convert to christianity at the barrel of a gun.
This put's her on the same level as the religious extremists and other hateful people and should marginalize her views.

Again, Captain Context, you missed her point. It's an issue that has been rehashed countless times by regular people and Ms. Coulter herself. If you want to understand what was said, go look it up.

Quote:

Even Bush's strongest critics don't resort to calling him names in public.

Bull! You're spouting a steady stream of ignorance in this thread.

Quote:

Wealthy people come to this country for medical treatment because it's the best that money can buy, no arguement there.

Yes, and because of the free market system, it's also available. Canadians love the socialized system UNTIL they get sick. Then, if they have the means, they come to this country to get the best care, and get that care without waiting three months.

Quote:

I certainly wouldn't want to get care in some second or third world country.

Are you calling Canada or England a 2nd or 3rd world country?

Quote:

I have 100 employees and earn more than highly paid doctors in this country so I do have a vested interest in Republican policies.
They love winners and hate losers.
The strong rule the weak and that's how it's always been
and we'll never change that.
Well, I think I'll go back into the heated pool for a while....

Incorrect, it's not about "hating" the losers.... that's a foolish statement. Republicans want to build an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. But the responsibility to be successful lies with the individual. Additionally, socialist systems remove the incentive to work and achieve. Without a profit motive, in a non-competitive system, the motivation to achieve more and do better, is crushed.

That's why, for so many decades, this was such a strong and wonderful country. We're losing that self-sufficiency as people continue to rely on the government more and more in their life.

Jump in your pool. But enjoy it while you can. Wait until you see what happen to your taxes in a few years after we put in place a socialist or government paid medical system.

Would you care to acknowledge your horrible misquoting of Winston Churchill.
Maybe later you can provide a quote from Churchill saying that "Stalin was a swell guy."

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Coulter called Edwards a "

Ignorance is truely bliss...
Everything you cited you took out of context. In fact, usually the context was ment to be humorous. If you are too Politically Correct to have a sense of humor, thats your problem,

LOL. As to the claim that "Even Bush's strongest critics don't resort to calling him names in public.", how ignorant can one be?! How often is Bush compared to Hitler? Not only that, but Bush's critics attack this country and out troops on a regular basis (can you say General "Betray-us"?). They make movies about his assasination, claim it is too bad when Cheney isn't killed in a bombing attack, and flat out lie about his record. None of what I just mentioned is based in humor, either, as are the comments you cite by Coulter. Can you say Double Standard?

BTW, here are some more comments I found by Churchill:

"A love for tradition has never strengthened a nation, indeed it has weakened nations in their hour of peril"

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the good feelings he excites among his opponents."

"Success is the ability to go from one victory to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

"To destroy may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To build can be the thoughtless act of a single day."

"When I am abroad, I always make it a rule to always criticize or attack the government of my own country"

Now, as you have done, 04SCTLS, I have altered each quote to 180 degrees out of context. Can you spot the word or words altered in each quote?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I did misquote Winston Churchill and that I'll admit.
But I still posited the same sentiment.
I was born in Canada which has had socialized medicine
since 1967.
The times I had to use the system I was very satisfied with the service. There are no insurance companies to deal with or copays or denials and no one puts off going to the doctor.
Things certainly haven't collapsed there and many people feel
there's a higher standard of living.
The disparity betwwen the wealthy and the poor is not as great.
Post secondary college university education is within reach of anyone who has the aptitude and ambition to attend.
No one has to pay 20,000.00 or more a year to attend a quality university.
Things are more expensive there yes and I'd probably be paying 55% in taxes instead of 40% here, but the Canadian dollar
just reached parity with the US Dollar which has declined against all
major world currencies. It is expected to climb higher and be worth more than the US Dollar very soon.This means that the price of imported goods will decline while the quality of life willl stay the same or improve.
Canada spends 40% of the GNP on the government and services vs 30% for the US.
The Republicans are racking up the debt faster than the democrats
ever did and Bush inherited a budget surplus.
Even if the Democrats win the next election they won't be able to raise taxes because of this.
Many Canadians have come to the US and enriched the country with a million people in California alone.
William Shatner-Captain Kirk is a Canadian green card holder and he plays a staunch republican on Boston Legal.
There is more opportunity here for driven people to succeed and create wealth and add to the society.
The 100 jobs I've created in a depressed economic area would'nt be here without the attraction America holds for enterpreneurs who make something from nothing.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Nice for you to chime in with some opinion as you started this discussion.
I believe Churchill also said something like that politics is like war except that in politics you can get killed many times.
Didn't someone also say if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Politics is a blood sport and not something for polite company.
Kerry was a veteran unlike Bush and people had no reservations about attacking him.
In war as in politics all is fair and winning means everything.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I did misquote Winston Churchill and that I'll admit.
But I still posited the same sentiment.
I was born in Canada which has had socialized medicine
since 1967.
The times I had to use the system I was very satisfied with the service. There are no insurance companies to deal with or copays or denials and no one puts off going to the doctor.
Things certainly haven't collapsed there and many people feel
there's a higher standard of living.
The disparity betwwen the wealthy and the poor is not as great.
Post secondary college university education is within reach of anyone who has the aptitude and ambition to attend.
No one has to pay 20,000.00 or more a year to attend a quality university.
Things are more expensive there yes and I'd probably be paying 55% in taxes instead of 40% here, but the Canadian dollar
just reached parity with the US Dollar which has declined against all
major world currencies. It is expected to climb higher and be worth more than the US Dollar very soon.This means that the price of imported goods will decline while the quality of life willl stay the same or improve.
Canada spends 40% of the GNP on the government and services vs 30% for the US.
The Republicans are racking up the debt faster than the democrats
ever did and Bush inherited a budget surplus.
Even if the Democrats win the next election they won't be able to raise taxes because of this.
Many Canadians have come to the US and enriched the country with a million people in California alone.
William Shatner-Captain Kirk is a Canadian green card holder and he plays a staunch republican on Boston Legal.
There is more opportunity here for driven people to succeed and create wealth and add to the society.
The 100 jobs I've created in a depressed economic area would'nt be here without the attraction America holds for enterpreneurs who make something from nothing.

wouldn't say Shatner plays a republican on Boston Legal...

This is not a "depressed" economy, unless you me "growing" by using the term, "depressed"...

Yes the republicans have been spending too much...

Bush didn't inherit any "surplus"! The surplus was "projected" from Clinton cooking the books...

Many people feel Canada is a higher standard of living? Are they Canadian, because I doubt that. Many claimed that the USSR had a higher standard of living when they obviously did not. Most of them were either elites in the USSR, limosine liberals from American...

"The disparity between the wealthy and the poor is not as great"?! If you judge that by the insanely rich (Gates, Buffet, ect.) then maybe. But not in any real sense. Our "poor" in American are overweight, have cars, TV's, houses that they own, AC, ect. As far as check book balances, they may be a large gap, but as far as standard of living, not so much. And that gap overall isn't as bad as more socialist countries, like Canada

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Yes, we're proud to be fat which is a bit ironic in a thread that started about health care. LOL
I didn't say the country was a depressed area just Buffalo which has seen a drain of people leaving over the years for better opportunities.
There are vacant stores in strip malls and completely vacant strip malls in the suburbs and surrounding areas.
There are many abandoned houses in the city proper, but on the other hand real estate is cheap for those who create opportunity.
The house I have with the pool and 2 acres out in the country would easily cost 5 to 10 times as much in other happening places and the property taxes are low.
I can't speak for all of Canada but in Toronto there are no slums
and there's a vibrant downtown with shops and boutiques and people rebuilding older houses.
Even public housing apartments are of mixed ethnicity and much safer places than in the US.
Toronto had only 60 murders last year in an area of 6 million people.
Canada has gun control which is anathema to many Americans but there's much less violent crime.
Here in Buffalo people get gunned down in the street in bad neighborhoods.
Quality of life isn't just about possessions.
I think both countries are great places to live and we should both Americans and Canadians consider ourselves lucky to be born in either country.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I did misquote Winston Churchill and that I'll admit.
But I still posited the same sentiment.

No, you posited a DIFFERENT sentiment, the OPPOSITE of what Churchill said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I was born in Canada which has had socialized medicine
since 1967.
The times I had to use the system I was very satisfied with the service. There are no insurance companies to deal with or copays or denials and no one puts off going to the doctor.

Anecdotal evidence, so what? I can present examples of the horrors of the Canadian healthcare system, like the fact that there are never any ICU beds available for heart attack victims. Voila! Anecdotal evidence that Canadian healthcare blows!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Things certainly haven't collapsed there and many people feel
there's a higher standard of living.

"Many people feel" - How do you know what people feel? - That's funny, because MANY people here "feel" that there's a higher standard of living in the US. Why do so many Canadian celebs live here instead of Canada? The only people looking to leave the US for Canada (since the draft expired) are criminals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

The disparity betwwen the wealthy and the poor is not as great.

That is the definition of socialism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Post secondary college university education is within reach of anyone who has the aptitude and ambition to attend.
No one has to pay 20,000.00 or more a year to attend a quality university.

From the level of ignorance you're showing, I'm not impressed with the quality of a Canadian education. You certainly have a lot of your history muddled up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

The Republicans are racking up the debt faster than the democrats
ever did and Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Do you even understand what a budget surplus means??? It means that the government confiscated TOO MUCH TAX MONEY from its citizens, more than was necessary to pay its own bills! And Bush, trying to avoid spending like drunken sailors, gave us back our own money. I guess you don't understand that. Probably that awesome Canadian college education again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Even if the Democrats win the next election they won't be able to raise taxes because of this.

Why should they? The Bush tax cuts have produced record revenue thanks to broadening the tax base. Oh, wait - don't tell me, the cheaper Canadian college system omits Economics 101 from its curriculum, eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Many Canadians have come to the US and enriched the country with a million people in California alone.

Don't you mean, enriched themselves by taking advantage of our superior wealth-building environment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

William Shatner-Captain Kirk is a Canadian green card holder and he plays a staunch republican on Boston Legal.

Ummm...that is a TV show...you do know that, right? Geez, what DO they teach in those universities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

There is more opportunity here for driven people to succeed and create wealth and add to the society.
The 100 jobs I've created in a depressed economic area would'nt be here without the attraction America holds for enterpreneurs who make something from nothing.

So what is your point? Are you just describing differences, or are you trying to show one being superior over the other? This reads more like a person wandering around in search of a thought.

You've spent a lot of time spewing out a bunch of nonsensical one-liners, but I think there's hope for you yet. It looks like you have to be educated all over again. Stick around, you will learn something. Even our owner Joey learns things from time to time.

At least you keep your temper in check, that's a good sign.

Welcome.

By the way, I've heard Toronto is a beautiful city and I'd like to visit there sometime. In the summer.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Actually,
I dropped out of school and don't have time for education as I'm too busy creating jobs and getting rich.
I don't want to go back to being a poor student.
Obviously I don't know what I'm doing....and for that
I apologize.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

It's been fun being pumelled by all you guys.
Us Canadians are just here to get rich off you Americans
and entertain you while doing it...

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Actually,
I dropped out of school and don't have time for education as I'm too busy creating jobs and getting rich.

I can definately appriciate that...

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Well thanks sheldrum
Achievement always trumps rhetoric.
I understand that Bill Maher is good friends with Ann Coulter
so intelligent minds really do need a stimulating counterpoint
to bring out their best arguements.
If we all agreed it would be a pretty boring world.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I understand that Bill Maher is good friends with Ann Coulter
so intelligent minds really do need a stimulating counterpoint

Actually it's Dennis Miller and Bill Maher. Where did you get this information?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I heard Bill say it himself on HBO tonight and seen her in previous episodes of his show.
I don't think he was being facetious or disengenuine.

Posted by: shagdrum

According to this link at wikipedia, Maher and Coulter...dated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_coulter#Personal_life

Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married.[12] She has dated Spin publisher Bob Guccione, Jr.,[13] television host Bill Maher and conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
A good arguement is very stimulating.
I remember demolishing an anti Reagan
panel during a debate at a university in 1984
regarding the nuclear buildup at that time.
Having parents who came from eastern
europe who escaped the tyranny of Soviet
Communism gave me a greater insight and passion
regarding that reality.
They were pacifists who wanted to disarm as an olive
branch and I argued that Communists only respected
strength and will and that Reagan policies would bankrupt
the Russians as their system was an abysmal economic failure
and there was no way they could keep up and MAD would
keep them from launching a first strike.
After the debate was over I felt surprised these people wanted
to be friends with me and discuss things further.
I was only 25 at the time but age and time have taught me
that opposites really do attract like a magnet and people can genuinely step outside of their convictions because who really knows everything.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
A good arguement is very stimulating.
I remember demolishing an anti Reagan
panel during a debate at a university in 1984
regarding the nuclear buildup at that time.
Having parents who came from eastern
europe who escaped the tyranny of Soviet
Communism gave me a greater insight and passion
regarding that reality.
They were pacifists who wanted to disarm as an olive
branch and I argued that Communists only respected
strength and will and that Reagan policies would bankrupt
the Russians as their system was an abysmal economic failure
and there was no way they could keep up and MAD would
keep them from launching a first strike.
After the debate was over I felt surprised these people wanted
to be friends with me and discuss things further.
I was only 25 at the time but age and time have taught me
that opposites really do attract like a magnet and people can genuinely step outside of their convictions because who really knows everything.

Very true...