Stupid 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.

I still do.

> Are you now
> against using high tech ID?

The issue is a non sequitur. I'm not convinced "high tech ID" [sic] will
eliminate or reduce fraud.

> It violates no more rights than
> having to show the police your
> driver's licence.

I disagree, and you're comparing apples to oranges. States regulate
drivers and their privileges. One is free to obtain a driver's license
or not. Your argument for biometric identification systems comes down to
two possible scenarios: either all citizens must carry biometric
identification or just those who apply for and/or receive welfare
benefits. I have questions about the government forcing citizens to use
biometric identification under either scenario.

>>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.

Because, as I suggested previously, workfare is a farce:
...the number of positions for which welfare
recipients are qualified is limited....

One way to estimate the number of jobs able-bodied welfare
recipients could hope to get is to look at jobs that require
just less than 12 years of formal education (or about a year
more than the average formal education of current welfare
recipients). In 1994, the U.S. had 28 million of these
relatively low-skilled jobs.

You're under the misimpression that the average welfare recipient is
merely between jobs and possessing of an adequate work ethic to assume
any and all possible jobs. You're wrong. Such is not the case. Most are
undereducated and lack a work ethic. That in and of itself limits their
opportunities. Add to that the fact that the economy churns out jobs
which require skills and training, which your workfare slackers neither
possess nor seek on their own.

>>>>>>>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?

Studies from the Cato Institute (cato.org) and other organizations which
have studied the issues surrounding welfare.

> [--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?

Lock them up and treat them, much like we do the minor children of
religious wackos who refuse appropriate and timely medical treatment for
grave illness. The status quo of allowing the mentally ill to roam city
streets, often drunk or on drugs (e.g., meth instead of Haldol), and
subjecting themselves to the elements (e.g., harsh winter or summer
temperatures) is unconscionable; the so-called "liberals" who approve of
such abuses of the mentally ill -- and who then shamelessly use them as
a political cause -- are every bit as warped as "Christian science"
parents who refuse treatment for their children. Most of the transient
homeless population are mentally ill; they need in-patient treatment,
not more "freedom" or handouts in the name of compassion.

> [--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.

It is NOT free, dummy. You wrongly assume that because you get no bill
after receiving treatment that it's free, but you pay for it dearly
beforehand. You ****ing retard.

> [--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.

That's *not* a difference between our systems: our unhealthies can also
receive pre-emergency treatment.

> [--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.

From the preface:

This document summarizes the main findings and recommendations
of a major report with the same title prepared by the authors
under contract to Health Canada. The full, 350-page report
consists of 6 chapters and a comprehensive bibliography. This
shorter paper is intended as a free-standing overview of the
primary research and analyses presented in the full report.

You retard.

> [--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

Anecdotal. Small sample. See next link.

> has ever been kept waiting for
> treatment.

Scroll down to "September 13, 2004: Ontario's radiology waiting lists
longer than ever," "May 1, 2004: Canadian Council on Health Technology
Assessment reports on Impact of Waiting times on Local Recurrence of
Breast Cancer," and "May 1, 2004: Quality Council of Cancer Care Ontario
releases 4-point plan to reduce waiting times."

http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>I'm happy with what they take.
>>>It's worth the benefits.
>>
>>Then voluntarily donate even more than what they take.
>
> Why more???

If it's so good perhaps you should pay more for it. Regardless, your
nation's socialist health care scheme continues to be so sufficiently
underfunded (meaning you're under-taxed) that your citizens are forced
to seek treatment in the US and elsewhere. One of the problems with
"free" coverage like yours is your sniffles are treated long before
someone's chemotherapy or lumpectomy is.

> [--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.

Then encourage them through sound policy to earn higher salaries instead
of subsidizing their poverty through inept policies that enthrall you
and make you feel compassionate. It's a phony compassion, of course,
because you're not using your own money to help others; philanthropy by
theft is still theft.

> [--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

It is NOT a form of insurance. Insurance is "Coverage by a contract
binding a party to indemnify another against specified loss in return
for premiums paid." Workers compensation is non-contractual -- it's a
forced compliance program operated by government bureaucrats. Workers
compensation doesn't indemnify against specified loss, it compensates
for damn near any loss. Insurance is actuarially sound; workers
compensation programs aren't. Workers compensation is a Ponzi scheme
operated by governments which takes money from some companies to pay
workers from other companies. You retard.

> [--snip--]
>
>>>Do you really think that all people
>>>have what it takes for the higher
>>>paying jobs?
>>
>>Did I say that? No. Strawman.
>
> Yes,

No. Strawman.

> [--snip--]
>
>>>You want to see people being
>>>'below' you so you can feel 'above'
>>>them.
>>
>>WTF makes you think that?
>
> Oh, let's see,

Grasping out of your flabby and pimply ass for straws doesn't answer
that question.

> [--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?

My sexual history is none of your business.

> [--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

Scared? Scared of what? You sure do love to paint with a broad brush
while you claim others are "-ists."

> Their kids are usually brought
> up never hearing from their parents
> about sex risks.

I beg to differ with your presumptions. Children from conservative
families are often taught to cherish their bodies, to save themselves
for marriage (or at least to 'responsible adulthood'), and that
abstinenece is the only 100% safe method of preventing STDs and
pregnancy. Why is it that my most liberal friends are the first ones in
our age group (30s and 40s) becoming grandparents while my conservative
friends' kids are going to college?

> [--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?

I attended university on academic scholarship. That was NOT a matter of
luck. It required that I subject myself to rigorous study habits and a
pattern of achievement.

> Or were you lucky enough
> to live at home, and/or have your
> schooling paid for?

I worked a FT job in addition to taking a full load of classes while
pulling a double major. I earned my own way, Skanky.

> Your attitude
> tells me the answer.

Your attitude tells me a lot more about you than what you perceive about me.

> You were lucky,

No, I worked my ass off. I earned my way. Nothing was given to me.

> and you dislike people

I seldom dislike anyone -- especially on a personal level. That's one of
the biggest differences between you and me. You're a misanthropist and
you consider yourself generous and compassionate based on what you can
coerce or force others to do so you needn't do it yourself.

> who are 'beneath' you

I've spent a lot of my time in impoverished areas. A lot of that has
included mixing my vacations with charitable work. I don't see those
whose schools and homes I've helped build being 'beneath' me, nor have I
felt it beneath me to work alongside them building infrastructure or
with their communities to develop programs which help their people
achieve self-sufficiency.

> because it's
> convenient to hate them

I don't hate anyone. I find you contemptible for a lot of things, but I
don't even hate you.

> when you place a high value on job status.

Strawman. I place a high value on education and work ethic, not on "job
status."

> You want to feel 'above' others.

That applies to you, Skanky, not to me. You 'feel' more compassionate
than others because you merely don't eat meat or because you support
socialized medicine and socialized Lord only knows what else. You take
the easy way out: you refuse to get your hands dirty practicing what you
preach. You're full of empty platitudes, full of bullshit.

> [--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,

Dreck's dancing would cause seismic instruments around the world to go
haywire.