DiamondDave2005

I'm no expert on Medical practices, and I'll state that up front. However, I grew up in Ireland, and most of my family still lives there.

The system they have works - eventually. My father needed heart surgery a couple of years ago, and only at the insistance of his GP (General Practitioner, equivalent to US Primary Care Physician) did he get bumped up on the list so that he could have his operation in four months instead of waiting ten months.

There are many instances of people being flown to the US for specialized treatment.

My parents pay a hefty premium each year entitling them to "preferred" treatment, with access to the best hospitals, if needed. My father almost died in a bad car accident ten years ago (his Toyota Carina was hit by a double-decker bus) and takes no chances with his health these days.

As for Canada, my sister and brother-in-law live in Edmonton. Last year, he found a lump on his neck, and went to the doctor. They determined that there was a possibility of thyroid cancer. He was scheduled for a biopsy - in six weeks! After the biopsy, it took four weeks to get the results. That's ten weeks wondering if he had cancer, and if he did, ten weeks in which it could be spreading. Luckily, he was ok.

Here's a good article about the Canadian system:http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/in...s&news_id=4616

A quote from the article: "In the greater Ottawa area there is one MRI machine for every 550,000 adults. People with medical conditions the government deems to be non-emergencies are made to wait for up to nine months. That includes people with chronic headaches, orthopedic complications and suspected multiple sclerosis.

Nashville has more than a dozen MRI machines for 1.2 million people. Here in Music City, if you need an MRI diagnostic scan you can get one within 24 hours."

Scary.

mikegarrison

Yes. It's called "case law".

DiamondDave2005

Here's something funny...

A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.

A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden,
and the sheep are armed.

Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into
voting for a Democracy.

Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very
well-informed and well-armed sheep.

mikegarrison

Yes, that probably was funny. Many, many years ago. Now it's just tired and boring. Too bad real life isn't determined by pithy, cute analogies. Things would be ever so much more simple.

JonasM

[QUOTE][COLOR=red]You talk about having 'heard' and 'stories'.

JonasM

So if some judge decides that it's OK to own slaves, that makes it OK? (An extreme example, I know, but it's in keeping with your stated principles).

Our Founders spoke of a government "Of Laws, not Of Men". Doesn't that mean anythig anymore?

I guess there is nothing that government can do that you will oppose, as long as some federal judge OKs it? I'm sure you can think of something.

JonasM

mikegarrison

Jonas, are you familiar with the term "straw man"?

JonasM

Abolutely I understand - please describe to me how that's a straw man argument.

Maybe I misunderstood your claim. You were claiming that a judge making a bad decision on some aspect of rights thus abrogates those rights for everyone who comes after.

My example was pretty extreme, but how does it differ philosophically?

JonasM

anarky

People like to pick and choose which laws they will obey and ignore and which rights that should and shouldn't be defended...even the ACLU.

DiamondDave2005

Oh, I'm hurt. Of course, you probably find dusty old tomes like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights just as boring.