Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
the healthcare system in Canada
They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
(not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,

And as a Canadian so do I. My experience is and was directly on a
professionally basis for many years and also for many years as a person in
dire need of medical care. If I lived in the US, the only way I'd get
sufficient medical care to actually survive would be for my living status to
be reduced that of a person of abject poverty living totally on the welfare
system. I don't call that living. Criticise the Canadian system as much as
you and your relatives want Tim, but don't for one second try state that the
US system is better until you've actually experienced multiple, long term,
medical difficulties.

Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
field.

And, that profit motive limits that best possible care solely to those who
have the money to pay for it. It certainly is not available to those of
middle or lower income. Is that the kind of medical system you'd like to see
in Canada? God help you in that kind of system if you become seriously ill.

I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
Americans.

And I say to you again, to benefit from that kind of system, you have to
become genuinely underprivileged to benefit from it. Imagine, working all
your life to achieve a certain level of comfort and then suddenly becoming
sick or getting into a serious accident. In the US system, all you've worked
for all your life is suddenly snatched away from you to pay for your
survival and then what's next when you eventually wind up broke?

I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.

Those self induced problems as you state it are a matter of opinion. There
isn't a person on this world who doesn't partake in some type of dangerous
or unhealth acts, you included. Exactly who is to state what is dangerous
and what isn't? Almost everything anyone does on a daily basis can be termed
unhealthy at some point or another.

every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...

I'd prefer the Benz doctor too if I could get him to treat me, but that
wouldn't be likely would it? I can tell from the way that you're talking
that you've never really experience anything close to a long term, seriously
affecting illness. Oh sure, maybe you've talked to people or read a bit, but
until you've actually experienced what it's like to be on both sides of the
fence, don't for one second think that you actually know what you're talking
about.

I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.

In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
between the two.


I am one who has been in need of medical treatment as well as my wife.
I have medical insurance that I pay for from the long term investments I
made during my working career in the US. Granted that my employers
provided low cost health insurance when I was employed, however I
decided early on that I should try to be self sufficient at the earliest
possible opportunity - which meant putting aside 10% of gross all during
my working career. By the way, this is less than the SS and medicare
deductions made by me and my employers during a longer period and
provides me with about 5 times the income that SS provides. I did all
this on a middle class income while several of my fellow employees
making much more than I lived paycheck to paycheck because they wanted
everything now.

I have been treated and survived colon cancer and my wife has survived
two strokes and carotid artery surgery as well as multiple stents. We
had zero waiting periods for treatment.

Is there some reason Canadians can't save during their working careers
so that they can afford medical insurance in retirement?

David G. Nagel wrote:
Tim;

A couple of years ago the premier of Alberta was bragging that the local
health care service was down to only 400 people who needed bypass
surgery. This was down from several thousand a few years before. They
were making progress unless you were one of the 400.

My wife was diagnosed as requiring bypass surgery. The only reason she
didn't go directly to the OR was because they were working on someone
else. She was the first person the next morning.

For life threatening situations, Canadian healthcare seems to work
well for most people - though I doubt you'd find a state in the US
with a backlog of 400 bypasses. OTOH, ask someone with kidney
stones or gall stones how they feel about their "care" in Canada.



Yes we did have insurance and she also worked for the hospital but that
only affected the cost, which was on the order of one dollar. Don't know
what that was for.

Canadian health care is not a panaciea, it has some serious problems
that have to be worked out.

Dave Nagel

BTW; What does this have to do with woodworking?

It's marked "OT" and ... is ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
the healthcare system in Canada
They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
(not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,

And as a Canadian so do I. My experience is and was directly on a
professionally basis for many years and also for many years as a person in
dire need of medical care. If I lived in the US, the only way I'd get
sufficient medical care to actually survive would be for my living status to
be reduced that of a person of abject poverty living totally on the welfare
system. I don't call that living. Criticise the Canadian system as much as

Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.
Witness the many gunshot victims that are treated in ER trauma all over
the US daily, for example. You don't know what you're talking about.

you and your relatives want Tim, but don't for one second try state that the
US system is better until you've actually experienced multiple, long term,
medical difficulties.

It is flatly better for *most* people but there are exceptions.
I don't see a giant rush of wealthy Europeans and Asians going to
Canada for treatment of serious illness. The Canadian system is
good, but does not attract the best medical folk, acts very slowly
for people whose problems are painful but not life threatening and
places government bureaucrats in charge of the medical process.


Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
field.

And, that profit motive limits that best possible care solely to those who
have the money to pay for it. It certainly is not available to those of
middle or lower income. Is that the kind of medical system you'd like to see
in Canada? God help you in that kind of system if you become seriously ill.

I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
Americans.

And I say to you again, to benefit from that kind of system, you have to
become genuinely underprivileged to benefit from it. Imagine, working all
your life to achieve a certain level of comfort and then suddenly becoming
sick or getting into a serious accident. In the US system, all you've worked

It happens here all the time and people do get care. They just don't
get the same care as, say, Bill Gates. So what? Your Candadian
wealthy don't wait for the national healthcare system when they have
a serious problem either. They come.... here.

for all your life is suddenly snatched away from you to pay for your
survival and then what's next when you eventually wind up broke?

Everyone ends up broke ... and dead.


I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.

Those self induced problems as you state it are a matter of opinion. There
isn't a person on this world who doesn't partake in some type of dangerous
or unhealth acts, you included. Exactly who is to state what is dangerous
and what isn't? Almost everything anyone does on a daily basis can be termed
unhealthy at some point or another.

How about drug abusers with HIV and AIDS? How about people who
never exercise, eat a horrible diet, and then drain the system
while they die by inches? The list of this sort of thing is endless
and demonstrates one of the many reasons that communist healthcare
punishes the responsible and rewards the irresponsible.


every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...

I'd prefer the Benz doctor too if I could get him to treat me, but that
wouldn't be likely would it? I can tell from the way that you're talking

It would in the US. I am not wealthy, but I've certainly been treated
by wealthy doctors here as have any number of friends and family. Profit
motivated business rewards *everyone* with its efficiencies and economies
of scale. It just doesn't reward them *equally*.

that you've never really experience anything close to a long term, seriously
affecting illness. Oh sure, maybe you've talked to people or read a bit, but
until you've actually experienced what it's like to be on both sides of the
fence, don't for one second think that you actually know what you're talking
about.

You are the clueless one here. I *have* seen exactly what you describe
up close and personal. I have watched a great many people of limited
or middle class means get excellent care in the US. The only people
crying for nationalized healthcare here are those who either want
something they have never earned or want a "get out of jail free" card
for their personal behaviors.


I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.

In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
between the two.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
the healthcare system in Canada
They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
(not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,

And as a Canadian so do I. My experience is and was directly on a
professionally basis for many years and also for many years as a person in
dire need of medical care. If I lived in the US, the only way I'd get
sufficient medical care to actually survive would be for my living status to
be reduced that of a person of abject poverty living totally on the welfare
system. I don't call that living. Criticise the Canadian system as much as
you and your relatives want Tim, but don't for one second try state that the
US system is better until you've actually experienced multiple, long term,
medical difficulties.

Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
field.

And, that profit motive limits that best possible care solely to those who
have the money to pay for it. It certainly is not available to those of
middle or lower income. Is that the kind of medical system you'd like to see
in Canada? God help you in that kind of system if you become seriously ill.

I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
Americans.

And I say to you again, to benefit from that kind of system, you have to
become genuinely underprivileged to benefit from it. Imagine, working all
your life to achieve a certain level of comfort and then suddenly becoming
sick or getting into a serious accident. In the US system, all you've worked
for all your life is suddenly snatched away from you to pay for your
survival and then what's next when you eventually wind up broke?

I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.

Those self induced problems as you state it are a matter of opinion. There
isn't a person on this world who doesn't partake in some type of dangerous
or unhealth acts, you included. Exactly who is to state what is dangerous
and what isn't? Almost everything anyone does on a daily basis can be termed
unhealthy at some point or another.

every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...

I'd prefer the Benz doctor too if I could get him to treat me, but that
wouldn't be likely would it? I can tell from the way that you're talking
that you've never really experience anything close to a long term, seriously
affecting illness. Oh sure, maybe you've talked to people or read a bit, but
until you've actually experienced what it's like to be on both sides of the
fence, don't for one second think that you actually know what you're talking
about.

I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.

In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
between the two.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
SNIP

Is there some reason Canadians can't save during their working careers
so that they can afford medical insurance in retirement?

Yes there is. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Paying for healthcare via the taxman guarantees that individuals
will *not* act responsibly in this area.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 21, 10:20*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[snipped evaluation of Canadian healthcare system... sort of]

Healthcare varies quite a bit from province to province. Many of the
people my wife and I socialise with are medical professionals. They
are aware of the flaws. And many work on the US side as well, and they
are aware of their flaws.

And people from all over the world also come to Canada for treatment,
especially children.

There are weak spots in healthcare in Canada, but it is functioning.

Overheard on a golf course in Michigan:

Doctor # 1 : "Say, did you know Johnson the contractor?"
Doctor # 2 : "Yes, I had my house built by him. Why?"
Doctor # 1 : "Well, he was a patient of mine, he passed away. ."
Doctor # 2 : "Really? What did he have?"
Doctor # 1 : "Sixty thousand dollars."

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
Is there some reason Canadians can't save during their working careers
so that they can afford medical insurance in retirement?

All Canadians automatically have health insurance. In Canada, there really
isn't anything medical to save for. Yes, one can buy some types of extended
health insurance for stuff like prescriptions, dental care, eyeglasses and
stuff like that, but that's about it. You can't buy insurance that will let
you jump the queue in an emergency room and you can't buy insurance to get
an immediate hip replacement or similar stuff like that.

The closest you could come to this stuff would be to save for medical
service in the US and I wouldn't exactly call that a type of medical
insurance.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:
Tim;

A couple of years ago the premier of Alberta was bragging that the local
health care service was down to only 400 people who needed bypass
surgery. This was down from several thousand a few years before. They
were making progress unless you were one of the 400.

My wife was diagnosed as requiring bypass surgery. The only reason she
didn't go directly to the OR was because they were working on someone
else. She was the first person the next morning.

For life threatening situations, Canadian healthcare seems to work
well for most people - though I doubt you'd find a state in the US
with a backlog of 400 bypasses. OTOH, ask someone with kidney
stones or gall stones how they feel about their "care" in Canada.


Yes we did have insurance and she also worked for the hospital but that
only affected the cost, which was on the order of one dollar. Don't know
what that was for.

Canadian health care is not a panaciea, it has some serious problems
that have to be worked out.

Dave Nagel

BTW; What does this have to do with woodworking?

It's marked "OT" and ... is ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Heart bypass operations can be life threatening and non life
threatening. That still doesn't justify a 400 person backlog.

Dave

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
I have been treated and survived colon cancer and my wife has survived
two strokes and carotid artery surgery as well as multiple stents. We
had zero waiting periods for treatment.

There are wait times for cancer treatment and long wait times for many other
types of treatment, but it's free. One thing I didn't mention, is that "Yes"
Tim is correct in that in many respects the Canadian Health Care system is
bloated and wasteful. I can't fault him for saying that, but there's also a
great many advantages to the Canadian health system and I've benefited from
them more than once. Time either doesn't believe there's any good within our
system or he chose to ignore them which is why I rushed to defend it despite
its inadequacies.

If I was hobbling around in great pain while waiting for a hip replacement,
I admit that I'd investigate going to the US to pay for immediate treatment.
But, that kind of treatment costs thousands of dollars and is certainly not
within the reach of many people unless they wanted to take out a second
mortgage on their house, assuming they owned a house in the first place.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
For life threatening situations, Canadian healthcare seems to work
well for most people - though I doubt you'd find a state in the US
with a backlog of 400 bypasses. OTOH, ask someone with kidney
stones or gall stones how they feel about their "care" in Canada.

I can't argue with you there. If I was in that kind of pain, I'd search
frantically for medical care to relieve that pain.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.

And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US, you
have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little closer.

It is flatly better for *most* people but there are exceptions.

That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich,
but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and
there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.

I don't see a giant rush of wealthy Europeans and Asians going to
Canada for treatment of serious illness. The Canadian system is
good, but does not attract the best medical folk, acts very slowly

Ahh, I see, you're stuck on "wealthy people". Most people are NOT WEALTHY.
Typical money grubbing outlook. If you've got money, then screw everybody
else. As long as you can pay for what you need, then everybody else can go
to hell. Absolutely zero social conscience just as long at your needs are
looked after. Very selfish of you.

How about drug abusers with HIV and AIDS? How about people who
never exercise, eat a horrible diet, and then drain the system

So tell me Tim. Have you ever in your life had unprotected sex? Not once?
Have you ever eaten a Big Mac? No? You've never eaten a bag of potato chips
or had a beer? I realize you're as pure as they come and society has no one
except itself to blame. But, I have to ask, exactly how much hypocritical
bull**** do you expect people to believe?

crying for nationalized healthcare here are those who either want
something they have never earned or want a "get out of jail free" card
for their personal behaviors.

And that's your problem. You're absolutely convinced that everyone who
supports socialized healthcare is looking for a freebie. You *know without a
doubt* that there's nobody out there who has consideration for others
besides themselves.

Selfishness is your highest ideal and you live by might is right. Common
ideals of many citizens of the US. All the current financial woes of those
financial institutions that failed in the US are a direct result of that
kind of greedy outlook and now it's starting to bite you in the butt big
time.

Enjoy!

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman what
with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data collection
down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
get?

From a non-paritisan standpoint:

In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's
distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R)
sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.

In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.

These should be re-regulated.

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.

And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US, you
have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little closer.

It is flatly better for *most* people but there are exceptions.

That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich,
but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and
there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.

So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've
earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to
pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your
middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?


I don't see a giant rush of wealthy Europeans and Asians going to
Canada for treatment of serious illness. The Canadian system is
good, but does not attract the best medical folk, acts very slowly

Ahh, I see, you're stuck on "wealthy people". Most people are NOT WEALTHY.
Typical money grubbing outlook. If you've got money, then screw everybody
else. As long as you can pay for what you need, then everybody else can go

You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me.
I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned
legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to
pay for what you want. Lovely.

to hell. Absolutely zero social conscience just as long at your needs are
looked after. Very selfish of you.

It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being
robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular
kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble,
but you're sure good at it.


How about drug abusers with HIV and AIDS? How about people who
never exercise, eat a horrible diet, and then drain the system

So tell me Tim. Have you ever in your life had unprotected sex? Not once?
Have you ever eaten a Big Mac? No? You've never eaten a bag of potato chips
or had a beer? I realize you're as pure as they come and society has no one
except itself to blame. But, I have to ask, exactly how much hypocritical
bull**** do you expect people to believe?

I never claimed to have never done something irresponsible. But I
do not advocate the use of government force to steal from you to
may for my mistakes ... and that's the difference between us.


crying for nationalized healthcare here are those who either want
something they have never earned or want a "get out of jail free" card
for their personal behaviors.

And that's your problem. You're absolutely convinced that everyone who
supports socialized healthcare is looking for a freebie. You *know without a

They are. Socialized healthcare punishes the healthy/responsible to
the benefit of the ill/irresponsible and it does so using force - the
force of government. It is dishonest and immoral.

doubt* that there's nobody out there who has consideration for others
besides themselves.

You, of course, care so much about others that your "consideration"
involves giving yourself permission to steal from your fellow citizens.
Bravo.


Selfishness is your highest ideal and you live by might is right. Common

My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen,
give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high ground.

ideals of many citizens of the US. All the current financial woes of those
financial institutions that failed in the US are a direct result of that
kind of greedy outlook and now it's starting to bite you in the butt big
time.

Enjoy!

The current "financial woes" are not just those of the US, they are
global and they have a common cause, and it is indeed greed. It is
the greed of the rank and file citizens around the world who insist
on things they have not earned being their "right" and use their
respective governments to loot other citizens to get what they want.
The current financial problems showed up in the banks only because
that's where the money is moved, but at its core, this is payday for
the socialism/communism you adore so much.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

B A R R Y wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman
what
with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data collection
down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
get?

From a non-paritisan standpoint:

In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's
distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R)
sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.

In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.

These should be re-regulated.

I'm about as anti regulation as you get, and I at least partly agree
with you. The idea of naked shorting seems to be the ultimate
ponzi scheme to me. It distorts the financial reality of the markets
by trading "value" that doesn't even exist. On its face, it sure
feels like a scam to me ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"B A R R Y" wrote

In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.

The "uptick" or short selling rules have been reinstated. This originally
were imposed as a result of Joseph's Kennedy's pulling enormous amount of
money out of the stock market during the 1929 crash. It was an anti Kennedy
rule.

The big problem was not so much the short selling, which can work quite well
as eveidenced in the futures and currency markets. It was the practice of
"naked short selling". It was the ability to make a trade without putting
up any of your own money. No matter how highly leveraged the futures and
currency markets are. you put your own ass on the line with every trade. And
you have the funds to back it up. The exchanges have strict margin
requirements.

If you have a bad trade, you pay for it. And if you can't, your broker
does. This keeps the traders honest. And this is strictly regulated. Some
margin requirements were changed for a short while about three months ago.
These were rescinded because nothing had changed and the risk was being
addressed in the way that it had worked will for quite some time. That said,
some brokerages that handle commodities and futures are tightening up on
their margin requirements.

Anyway, what had occurred recently by the big boys speculating in stocks was
that they were making some vry big short sells WITHOUT PUTTING UP ANY OF
THEIR OWN MONEY. This is what John Mc Cain has been referring to as not
having any skin in the game. The whole problem with the subprime martgages,
etc has always been is that the folks who make the loans pass them off to
others. And that is exactly what the stock short sellers had done. Without
any risk to themselves, they make others pay for their trades. Indeed, in
many ways, they fueled a market that may not have existed as strongly as it
did because of their naked short sells.

Lee Michaels wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote
In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.

The "uptick" or short selling rules have been reinstated.

When?

Or do you mean "The List"?

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
Lee Michaels wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote
In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.

The "uptick" or short selling rules have been reinstated.

When?


Within the last few days, I think last wednesday or thursday. Don't quote me
on that. This is not my area of expertise. Just the general fallout I hear
from the financial news. I do not directly work with stocks.

I do know that the naked short selling is now prohibited.

I am pretty sure that stock based futures are still intact. But these only
exist for certain stocks and it is a very limited market. It hasn't really
caught on. The equity index futures are available for that sort of thing.
And all of these have strict margin requirements.


Or do you mean "The List"?

No.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:20:39 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...

Perhaps my point of view has been influenced by my experiences. My best
friend throughout grade school and high school came from a family of
medical professionals. One brother was a doctor, one a vet, and his
sister was a pharmacist. His father was the first licensed physician in
the state.

All of them considered medicine a calling, not a business. The doctor
brother came out of med school and went to work in Appalachia. He
chuckled as he told stories of being paid in corn, chickens, and
occasionally moonshine.

My doctor sometime later had given up a lucrative practice in Chicago and
moved to a little town near the Wisconsin border because he couldn't stand
the way he was starting to treat medicine as a business.

So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's driving it.
He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice suit, or he may
just be my kind of doctor.

So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
distasteful. When medicine became a "business" instead of a "calling" we
all became poorer.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:28:11 -0500, Upscale wrote:

I for one, am glad that I'm part of and benefiting from the Canadian medical
system. Sure, like any other system it isn't perfect and there's always room
for improvement. Am I being selfish? Damned right I am. I want to survive as
much as the next person and I'd like being able to do so with a certain
level of self respect. That wouldn't happen in the US system.

In the past, I've been offered well paying jobs in the US and I've always
turned them down because of what it would cost to pay for my medical needs.
The reality is that I'd be working to survive in the US while up here in
Canada at least I can work to live with some hope. There's a big difference
between the two.

That's a very good summation of what I hear from the Canadians I know.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:26:52 -0500, Upscale wrote:

That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich,
but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and
there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.

Tim will never get that point.

Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
bankrupt from medical bills.

It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2 or 3
times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for
indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their resources,
and in some cases the resources of family members.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
SNIP
So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
distasteful.

I heartily agree - that's why I could never be a liberal Democrat.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 22, 12:58*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:


So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's driving it..
He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice suit, or he may
just be my kind of doctor.

Or, as is the case with my doctor.. his exes are driving Benz's and he
drives a 12 year old 320i

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:20:39 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...

Perhaps my point of view has been influenced by my experiences. My
best friend throughout grade school and high school came from a
family of medical professionals. One brother was a doctor, one a
vet, and his sister was a pharmacist. His father was the first
licensed physician in the state.

All of them considered medicine a calling, not a business. The
doctor
brother came out of med school and went to work in Appalachia. He
chuckled as he told stories of being paid in corn, chickens, and
occasionally moonshine.

My doctor sometime later had given up a lucrative practice in
Chicago
and moved to a little town near the Wisconsin border because he
couldn't stand the way he was starting to treat medicine as a
business.

So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's
driving it. He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice
suit, or he may just be my kind of doctor.

Or maybe he just doesn't care much about cars. The CEO of Word
Perfect used to ride around in a clapped out 20 year old pickup truck
until the marketing guys got it across to him that people seeing him
in that though that the company was in trouble and he got some kind of
shiny new econobox to go to work in.

So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that
getting rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright
immoral,
certainly distasteful. When medicine became a "business" instead of
a "calling" we all became poorer.

Cost me a thousand bucks at the emergency room to get four stitches
the other day. I don't think anybody was profiteering though--most of
that was "emergency room charge", which I understand is a kind of tax
(imposed by the hospital, not the government) on those who can pay to
cover the costs for those who can't, since the ER is required by law
to take all comers regardless of financial situation. The doctor's
fee was something like a hundred bucks.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
bankrupt from medical bills.

But maybe not for long, eh? New York Times, Monday September 22, 2008:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9669C8B 63

Besides, the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to
practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the
number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an
increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to the
US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to
wait for it?

IOW, TINSTAAFL, eh?

I too, wish there was ... but the bright side for us, since there was no
guarantee issued granted with "life", is that it's the 21st century, not the
1st - 20th.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
bankrupt from medical bills.

But maybe not for long, eh? New York Times, Monday September 22, 2008:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9669C8B 63

Correction, that was a article published in 2000, not 2008, which the mast
head reads... can't trust the NYT about anything.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Larry Blanchard wrote:

snip
Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
bankrupt from medical bills.

It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2
or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for
indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their
resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.


You've heard of Medicaid? Those in such unfortunate circumstances do and
will receive needed care....as well as transportation(in most locales) to
said needed medical appointments. They may indeed lose assets but that kind
of follows anyone whom declines or can't afford insurance be it for their
house (fire), car (wreck) or medical (health).

What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies or
everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is the medical
providers themselves and the drug companies that have increased medical
costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the past few decades.
Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like the true problem. I have
a few co-pays today exceeding the total cost of a specific medical service
in the 70's........Rod

Lee Michaels wrote:


I do know that the naked short selling is now prohibited.

I read that only applies to a list of mostly-financial stocks.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

snip
Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
bankrupt from medical bills.

It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2
or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for
indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their
resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.


You've heard of Medicaid? Those in such unfortunate circumstances do and
will receive needed care....as well as transportation(in most locales) to
said needed medical appointments.

My mother went bankrupt from medical bills.

I'm not going into details here, but there are very necessary medical
treatments not covered my Medicaid.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

snip
Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes
bankrupt from medical bills.

It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2
or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not
for indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their
resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.


You've heard of Medicaid? Those in such unfortunate circumstances do
and will receive needed care....as well as transportation(in most
locales) to said needed medical appointments. They may indeed lose
assets but that kind of follows anyone whom declines or can't afford
insurance be it for their house (fire), car (wreck) or medical
(health).

If they fall into one of the eligibility categories. Just being sick,
broke, and uninsured doesn't do it.

What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies
or everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is
the
medical providers themselves and the drug companies that have
increased medical costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the
past few decades. Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like
the true problem. I have a few co-pays today exceeding the total
cost of a specific medical service in the 70's........Rod

Next time you think someone is gouging you on medical costs, ask them
what they pay for malpractice insurance. It's not just doctors who
have to pay it by the way, nurses and just about anyone else who is
likely to touch a patient generally pay it.

As for "kind of follows anyone who declines or can't afford
insurance", try "had insurance from employer, got sick, company went
under, group policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of premiums by
employer, couldn't get coverage for his preexisting condition from
another carrier".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"B A R R Y" wrote

Lee Michaels wrote:


I do know that the naked short selling is now prohibited.

I read that only applies to a list of mostly-financial stocks.

That could be. That sounds right.

Short selling of stocks in general isn't that popular.

But profiteering on the financial shipwrecks does seem quite popular in
certain circles.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:m1kkq5-
So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've
earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to
pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your
middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?

Tim, you're so full of crap, that it's galling. Try as you might, you keep
attempting to put your words into the mouths people with whom you disagree.

Canadian health care is paid for by everyone and administered by the
government. If you have the money, your taxes contribute to the system. If
you don't then you're still covered. You consider health care a luxury that
only the rich should receive, everyone else can go to hell. We treat it as a
basic right, not any different than many of the rights that the US has
enshrined in their constitution.

You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me.
I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned
legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to
pay for what you want. Lovely.

You're a flat out liar. Still trying to put words in my mouth. Your feeble
attempt to compare healthcare to "what people want" is as misdirecting a
statement at it gets. Healthcare is not "a want", it's a right in our
society. What you advocate is a complete separation into a two tier system,
the rich and the poor and you'd be just as happy for the rich to get richer
and the poor to stay that way.

It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being
robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular
kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble,
but you're sure good at it.

My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen,
give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high
ground.

You're highest ideal is lieing and Bull****ting as long as you can get away
with it. Thanks for the lesson in trolling. You like being an asshole and
quite obviously, I'm not the only one to think so.

Bye.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:bi0lq5-
Larry Blanchard wrote:
So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
distasteful.

I heartily agree - that's why I could never be a liberal Democrat.

You're full of ****. Feeble try at a flip-flop.

"Swingman" wrote in message


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9669C8B 63

Besides, the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to
practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the
number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an
increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to
the
US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to
wait for it?

Very possible, but I'm willing to wager that the conditions will change in
the not too distant future. Despite the cost of medical training that
students pay out of their own pockets, a sizable portion of it is subsidized
by the government. And then what happens, but many of them head down to the
US solely for the profit motive.

I think that tide will be stemmed to a large degree. Taking on Tim's warped
view of what consists of theft, it's stealing from our Canadian society to
get their training and then going to the US for profit. At the very least, I
can envision some type of mandated term of service in Canada before they're
eligible to leave.

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:m1kkq5-
So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've
earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to
pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your
middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?

Tim, you're so full of crap, that it's galling. Try as you might, you keep
attempting to put your words into the mouths people with whom you disagree.

Canadian health care is paid for by everyone and administered by the
government. If you have the money, your taxes contribute to the system. If
you don't then you're still covered. You consider health care a luxury that
only the rich should receive, everyone else can go to hell. We treat it as a
basic right, not any different than many of the rights that the US has
enshrined in their constitution.

Which is your privilege. It has been done before. It is called
"socialism". It has failed over the long- and short- term in most
every case ... the time it takes to fail seems to be proportional
to how severe a case of the socialism disease a society inflicts
upon itself.


You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me.
I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned
legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to
pay for what you want. Lovely.

You're a flat out liar. Still trying to put words in my mouth. Your feeble
attempt to compare healthcare to "what people want" is as misdirecting a
statement at it gets. Healthcare is not "a want", it's a right in our
society. What you advocate is a complete separation into a two tier system,

Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? Does a doctor
not have a "Right" to their time and effort? How about a drug
researcher? A nurse? Why do the rights of the "poor" trump those
of everyone else in the society?

the rich and the poor and you'd be just as happy for the rich to get richer
and the poor to stay that way.

I want everyone to keep what they have *Earned* and not take things
away from other citizens just because they need or want something.
I need to eat. Do I have a "right" to steal food just because
I am hungry? Your conception of rights is deeply flawed if you
think need=right. Indeed that very ideas has been the basis
for some of the most evil actions mankind has ever inflicted
upon itself.


It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being
robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular
kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble,
but you're sure good at it.

My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen,
give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high
ground.

You're highest ideal is lieing and Bull****ting as long as you can get away
with it. Thanks for the lesson in trolling. You like being an asshole and
quite obviously, I'm not the only one to think so.

Game-Set-Match - you ran out of rational ideas and started the
inevitable name calling that follows. I am more than happy to
voluntarily help those in genuine need. I am not happy to
outsource that process to mob rule using government as their
thugs to carry out their wishes.


Bye.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:bi0lq5-
Larry Blanchard wrote:
So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
distasteful.
I heartily agree - that's why I could never be a liberal Democrat.

You're full of ****. Feeble try at a flip-flop.



Again, you've no idea about my personal behaviors in this regard.
Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the
misery of other and have - even recently -refused to do so.
But a poor man stealing from a rich man is just as dishonorable
as the reverse situation. We are either people of principle
or we can abandon all notion of civil behavior.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9669C8B 63
Besides, the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to
practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the
number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an
increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to
the
US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to
wait for it?

Very possible, but I'm willing to wager that the conditions will change in
the not too distant future. Despite the cost of medical training that
students pay out of their own pockets, a sizable portion of it is subsidized
by the government. And then what happens, but many of them head down to the

i.e. At the point of taxman's gun.

US solely for the profit motive.

You are making my point. The students got something they did not earn
in the first place, and then "steal" it by applying elsewhere. This
is the innate problem with all wealth redistribution schemes.


I think that tide will be stemmed to a large degree. Taking on Tim's warped
view of what consists of theft, it's stealing from our Canadian society to
get their training and then going to the US for profit. At the very least, I

yes - theft begets theft - one kind of immoral action creates another.

can envision some type of mandated term of service in Canada before they're
eligible to leave.

Demonstrating yet another outcome of all socialist schemes - they lead
to some form of slavery. Why not just let the students pay their own
way and then use the education they paid for as they wish. There is
no theft, no slavery, and no mob rule.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Upscale" wrote

I think that tide will be stemmed to a large degree. Taking on Tim's
warped
view of what consists of theft, it's stealing from our Canadian society to
get their training and then going to the US for profit. At the very least,
I
can envision some type of mandated term of service in Canada before
they're
eligible to leave.

I wish, no pray (and I'm not particularly religious), that we forge a system
in this country, that, at the very least, let's us at die with dignity and
without stripping our families of the fruits of a lifetime of our collective
labors.

That said, there has never been a guarantee of that wish in human history
.... we are destined to die.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 22, 9:02*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? *


When you pay insurance premiums, you have the 'right' to have whatever
fixed if you've paid your premiums (either direct or via direct pay-
cheque (tax) withdrawal.

In the automotive version, many people pay to fix my car if my damage
exceeds the total premiums I have paid.

I suppose the difference lies in the area of what a doctor is allowed
to charge for a certain product...but that is ultimately his/her
choice to belong to that system. The autobody guy isn't regulated.

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:02 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Please explain to me where this "right" comes from?


When you pay insurance premiums, you have the 'right' to have whatever
fixed if you've paid your premiums (either direct or via direct pay-
cheque (tax) withdrawal.

There is another big difference: With socialist healthcare of the sort
found in Canada and elsewhere, even if you have *never* paid a
premium, you get to make claims against the system. If people choose
to band together to spread risk via an insurance mechanism, there is
absolutely no problem. When they are *forced* to do so AND forced to
pay for people who never contributed a dime, this is known as ... er
..... fraud.

I was born in Canada but never lived there full time for any long
period. Suppose I moved back and retired there, having never paid a
penny of Canadian taxes. Is it morally OK that I should reap the
benefits of the healthcare and elder care system in place there?
Again, these are the kinds of problems innate to wealth redistribution
schemes.


In the automotive version, many people pay to fix my car if my damage
exceeds the total premiums I have paid.

All of whom voluntarily participate in the insurance system. Moreover,
there are many insurers competing for your business thereby providing
the best possible rates to the lowest risk customers. This
eeeeeeevil market behavior helps keep a cap on premiums in a way
no government thug ever could.


I suppose the difference lies in the area of what a doctor is allowed
to charge for a certain product...but that is ultimately his/her
choice to belong to that system. The autobody guy isn't regulated.

Sure he/she is. Autobody prices are "regulated" by what the
insurance company is willing to pay for a particular bit of work.
The distinction here though, is that the entire process is *voluntary*.
You don't *have* to pay comprehensive insurance on any car you own
outright (though most states here require liability before you can
get on the road as a protection for others - even there, though, they
do no mandate *who* insures, only that you be insured).

Contrast this with socialist healthcare. There is one provider, and
there is no competition for lowest price, best service, or highest
quality care. The only "option" is whether you want to be in the
medical business or not. Once you decide to do so, you are forced
to place this perverse game of stealing from some to give to others.
Worse still, since there is always more demand for healthcare than there
is supply, the limited supply is forcibly redistributed to the entire
population without regard to their personal behaviors or willingness
to pay. The result is that most people (everyone except the nominal
poor) see a *decrease* in the quality, efficiency, and speed of care.

In short, it's a deal done strictly by government coercion and it's
a system that causes most people to be served more poorly than they
would otherwise be. In the mean time, the real answer to care for
the poor - incenting the rest of us to help them on a voluntary
charitable basis - gets tossed in the wastebasket because private
charity is something the political critters cannot use to their
personal benefit and ambition.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? Does a doctor
not have a "Right" to their time and effort? How about a drug
researcher? A nurse? Why do the rights of the "poor" trump those
of everyone else in the society?

All those people get paid and paid well. They enjoy an exalted position in
our society both monetarily and socially. They just don't get paid to your

Which they *earned* by working and studying hard, only to discover
that the dishonest mob (aka "The Public") have decided that they
get to determine just how rewarded the individual should be for
all that hard work. It is nothing short of mob rule.

greedy standards. The poor trump nothing.

Sure they do. They get to benefit from something they do not
have to earn. Their rights become more important than those
who are not poor, who *do* have to pay for what they want.


Game-Set-Match - you ran out of rational ideas and started the

Wrong again. It's impossible to argue the point because you're entirely
incapable of the difference between the giving of health care and the giving
of a physical object like a car. To you, they're both the same when it comes

Neither are "given". Both have to be earned by someone. People of
your philosophical persuasion love to ignore this little fact. You
just want someone other than the person who actually earned it to have
use of it. Using your logic, I should pay for a car and you should
be able to drive it anytime you like.

to value and that's why you're emotionally and logically unequipped to
differentiate between the two. That makes you an asshole. I'm not calling

There is no difference in principle. Both require human time and effort
to create. Both require the application of skill. You want to elevate
one over the other for no defensible reason other than you like being
in charge and telling everyone else what the owe you.

you a name, I'm just stating a fact.

No, your still name calling - it's the last resort of a completely
failed argument.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/