"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> Scented Nectar wrote:
[--snip--]
> >>You've yet to offer a reasonable solution to the current problem of
> >>welfare, Skanky.
> >
> > I think I have.
>
> No, you haven't. You've suggested that we potentially violate civil
> rights by requiring biometric identification of at least one group of
> citizens (welfare recipients), and you'll find very little support if
> you want to extend such biometric identification to all citizens simply
> to cut down on fraud committed by a handful of people. Second, you've
> suggested raises in the minimum wage. While that sounds like good
> policy, the actual result of such policy is a reduction in the number of
> entry-level and menial-skilled jobs -- meaning those you seek to help
> with it are actually harmed by such policy.
Until now you've argued that the
fraud runs rampant. Are you now
against using high tech ID? It
violates no more rights than
having to show the police your
driver's licence.
> See previous link and the following:
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_19977810
That only confirms my saying that
there's not enough jobs to go
around.
> >>>>>which obviously means some jobs
> >>>>>are absolutely out but to a few, then
> >>>>>why not? As long as they are now
> >>>>>ready to work, break time's over.
> >>>>
> >>>>You haven't shown me that they're "now ready to work."
> >>>
> >>>And you haven't shown that they're
> >>>not.
> >>
> >>The very fact that they're on welfare shows that they're not too
> >>concerned about working.
> >
> > You're completely throwing salt
> > in the wounds
>
> No, I'm not. Take a look at demographic data on typical welfare
> recipients in both our countries. The norm is under-educated, began
> having children very early, with little or no previous job experience,
> and from a family which received at least some public assistance for at
> least the previous generation.
Where, other than your bias, did
you come up with that?
[--snip--]
> > Would you like to
> > see your country become a 3rd
> > world nation in spots?
>
> Perhaps you should visit some of the welfare projects and tell me what
> you don't find third-world about them. I believe it would alleviate a
> lot of it, at least with respect to the homeless poor as opposed to the
> chronically homeless mentally ill (which is a problem completely
> unrelated to issues related to the economy and affordable housing).
What would you like to see happen
about the homeless mentally ill?
[--snip--]
> >>And every hospital emergency room in the US is filled with people who
> >>don't even have a ****ing Canadian Health Card. No hospital can refuse
> >>emergency treatment for any reason in our country. That means the
> >>taxpayer often picks up the bill, but also those who have health
> >>insurance and have to pay higher premiums because of the expenses
> >>hospitals incur from uninsured patients.
> >
> > So it's a little bit better in Canada.
>
> No, it isn't any better in Canada. What part of "no hospital can refuse
> emergency treatment for any reason" do you not understand, dipshit? You
> wouldn't need a health care card, proof of insurance, identification, or
> anything to get emergency treatment here.
How about non-emergency treatment.
Here it's free.
[--snip--]
> > To ensure the
> > health and well being of our many
> > citizens.
>
> Yet you have unhealthy and unwell citizens in about the same proportion
> as our nation (even when counting our illegal alien population). Imagine
> that.
At least our unhealthies can go to
the doctor before it becomes an
emergency.
[--snip--]
> With rare exceptions, waiting lists in Canada, as in most
> countries, are non-standardized, capriciously organized, poorly
> monitored, and (according to most informed observers) in grave
> need of retooling.
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media...ting_list.html
That's an opinion article, not actual
research.
[--snip--]
> Oncology isn't a small, trifling issue. People with cancer shouldn't be
> kept in queues, much less moved in preferential order for capricious
> reasons. That's YOUR health care system. Not mine.
No one I've ever known with cancer
has ever been kept waiting for
treatment.
[--snip--]
> > I'm happy with what they take.
> > It's worth the benefits.
>
> Then voluntarily donate even more than what they take.
Why more???
[--snip--]
> Deductibles are fixed amounts -- $100, $250, $500, etc. Co-insurance
> typically is 80-20, in which an insurer covers 80% above the deductible
> to a certain amount (typically $5000) and then 100% for the remainder of
> the calendar year. Someone who incurs $5000 in medical bills and has a
> standard 80-20 policy with a $500 deductible would spend $1400 out of
> pocket -- 28% of one's own medical expenses. Would you rather spend 100%
> or 28%?
None of the above amounts are
affordable for those on fixed low
incomes.
[--snip--]
> > You're avoiding the question
>
> No, I'm not.
>
> > How would you feel
>
> Stop changing the subject. It is not a form of insurance.
Hahah How many times are you going
to avoid the question? Snipping doesn't
make it go away.
[--snip--]
> > Do you really think that all people
> > have what it takes for the higher
> > paying jobs?
>
> Did I say that? No. Strawman.
Yes, you said that the low paid
jobs are just stepping stones.
[--snip--]
> > You want to see people being
> > 'below' you so you can feel 'above'
> > them.
>
> WTF makes you think that?
Oh, let's see, could it be your
blatant classism?
[--snip--]
> >>>Very few compared to the ones
> >>>who get preggers from unprotected
> >>>sex.
> >>
> >>And even less among those who control their drives and hormones so they
> >>can achieve something better for their futures first -- like finishing
> >>school, attending university, etc.
> >
> > So, you never got any dates when
> > you were in school, did you?
>
> Non sequitur. One can date and control himself or herself.
So, are you still a virgin?
[--snip--]
> > They will never get a lecture
> > about sex and consequences.
>
> I beg to differ about the "overly conservative families" not getting
> information about "sex and consequences."
They are the ones scared to discuss
such hush-hush matters of you-know-
what. Their kids are usually brought
up never hearing from their parents
about sex risks.
[--snip--]
> > It's not hypothetical for a number
> > of people. You were lucky.
>
> Luck has NOTHING to do with where I am in life. Busting my ass in school
> (and out of it) and developing a work ethic did.
Did you go to school AND have to
hold down 2 jobs like you expect
others to? Or were you lucky enough
to live at home, and/or have your
schooling paid for? Your attitude
tells me the answer. You were
lucky, and you dislike people who
are 'beneath' you because it's
convenient to hate them when you
place a high value on job status.
You want to feel 'above' others.
[--snip--]
> >>>>>That's bull.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it isn't. He injured himself by trying to lift an engine out of a
> >>>>car contrary to the safe, approved manner of doing it.
> >>>
> >>>So what would you have him do?
> >>
> >>Find gainful employment suitable for someone with his self-inflicted
> >>disability. He shouldn't be on the dole since he's well enough to go to
> >>raves and experiment with drugs at them with his children.
> >
> > But was he dancing?
>
> Not on that ****ing blue foot of his.
If he wasn't dancing, then how
does attending a party disprove
his disability?
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.