Sorry, Issodhos, but the reading problem is yours, though I concede that I could
have more clearly linked the statistical reference to Mumps.  The first statement
of mine that  you cited states that you sent multiple messages to the thread
concerned with which country has the better health care system (though as I have
pointed out you didn't really discuss that issue but introduced several others
under that thread).  It said nothing about you citing statistics and I certainly
agree that your remarks were not based upon data.    I then turned to your
reference about what you described as a statistical exchange between me and
Mumps.  The reference to alleged statistics had to do with him.

As for this and previous entire exchanges, they are in the archives.  Anybody who
wishes can review them and I am confident that a disinterested reviewer would
agree that you have distorted and/or misunderstood my posts on both of the threads
that I cited.  The record speaks for itself.

There is no need for further discussion, and in any event I'm off for a glorious
week in the bush without fax, laptop or phones.  Peace and good will.  Dan
.

"Issodhos @aol.com" wrote:

> In a message dated 6/4/00 10:05:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Issodhos snipped the part of the message that stated the thread I
> introduced,
> > and
> >  to which he sent many messages (check the archives my friend), that was
> >  specifically about whether Canada or the U.S. had a better health care
> > system.
> >  It was not a statistical exchange between Mumps and me.  He presented an
> >  ideological argument which included a few false statistics and absurd
> >  statements.  I responded to his points citing both data and authority.  I
> >  suggested that the case was closed unless anybody, Issodhos  included,
> > wished to
> >  present any reputable data to argue otherwise (Again, check the archives).
> >
> >  Because Issodhos sent many messages to this thread without providing any
> >  reputable data to challenge the overall efficiency and cost effectiveness
> of
> > the
> >  Canadian system versus the U.S., I suggested that apparently he was  really
> >  trying to discuss other points, which I attempted to identify and asked
> him
> > to
> >  correct me if I misstated them.
>
> I never sent any statistics and I never claimed that one system provided
> better health care than the other.  I will assume you have a reading
> comprehension problem, so perhaps rather then arguing the point you can
> peruse the posts I sent and show where your claims concerning by postings are
> born out.
>
> Posts sent by me on the topic of health care:
>
> In a message dated 5/16/00 1:07:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >
> >  What?  You get *bills* for childbirth?  What sort of third-world country do
> >  you live in?  What the hell is happening when the alleged richest country
> >  in the world makes its citizens pay out money for childbirth?
>
>      Actually, Alister, the philosophical question of why one's neighbors
> should be required to pay for the hospital costs of delivering one's baby
> aside, all economically productive citizens down under who pay taxes "pay out
> money for child birth" -- unless of course, Aussies have become so altruistic
> that they work as doctors, nurses, orderlies, hospital janitors, ambulance
> drivers, receptionists, equipment manufacturers, cooks, etc. without pay.
>
> <snip>
>
> >  But I don't think many of us realise here that you've got to pay out for
> >  childbirth.  What happens when, for example, someone's brought in to a
> >  hospital after a car accident?  Do they have to pay their bills for it
> >  regardless of capacity to pay?
>
>     If they do not have insurance, individually contracted or company
> provided, they get treated and the other paying customers make up the
> difference in higher costs.  If not, and they have the ability (the working
> middle class for all practical purposes), they will be put on a monthly
> payment plan structured to their income.  If they or the other party (if at
> fault) has automobile insurance, the insurance company pays.
>
>   Of course, none of this addresses the question of preventative routine
> health care which is where the real issue lies for the lower income working
> people in America.
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
>  <snip>
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/18/00 8:49:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >
> >  Hard to put that aside, since Man is a social animal. One might just as
> >  sensibly ask why parents should be expected to pay for the costs of raising
> >  their own children.
>
>     Oddly enough, because of their own choice (or carelessness) they created
> the children and they are indeed THEIR children, not society's or the state's.
>
> >  If by "economically productive" you mean working class, as I assume you
> >  must, then the working class don't pay tax, capitalists pay all taxes out
> >  of surplus value.
>
>     By "economically productive" I mean anyone from a ditch digger to a CEO.
> I suspect you have some esoteric theory, but you will have to explain why you
> say I, as a member of the working class, am NOT paying taxes when I am forced
> to send in or have expropriated from my paycheck, income for which I have
> exchanged my labor and a portion of my life. :-)
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/18/00 1:24:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Have you tried paying $2000 for a birth when you are making
> >  $5 per hour--I think not.
>
> 1. Are you trying to make a point
> and
> 2. Why are you making babies if you are only earning 5 bucks an hour?
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/18/00 1:32:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >
> >  That's why it's called universal health care.  It's universal.  We pay
> >  based on capacity to pay, and we receive based on need to receive.  Sounds
> >  fair to me, and to most others who live here.
>
>    Well then, good for you guys, Alister.  If most of you are happy with your
> system that is your business.  Apparently most Americans are not interested
> in this type of program.  No skin off of your nose, Mate.
>
>   Does it not seem illogical
> >  to you to pay pensions and benefits to parents who need them, but not
> >  assist them in paying for the birth of their child?
>
>   One may have a right to spawn but one does not have a right to demand that
> one's neighbors provide for and raise one's spawn.  Perhaps you would explain
> the logic of placing the demand on your neighbor that she pay for your
> actions.
>
> >  Now I'm beginning to see why your system is so inefficient.  Half of your
> >  hospital staff must be accountants and debt retrievers!  So, am I right in
> >  assuming that the hospital has a direct interest in not treating those
> >  without the capacity to pay?  Or at least, not giving them tests or
> >  treatments that could prove expensive?  Even if this isn't true (and I
> >  can't see how it couldn't be) your system must be worse than ours in terms
> >  of putting a price on human life.  Private health insurance, like private
> >  education, should be eliminated in the interests of creating an equitable
> >  and fair society.
>
>     Well,  if it makes you happy to claim your system is more efficient than
> the American system, that's okay.  Goodness knows there are many ways of
> doing things.  You asked what happened in a particular situation and I
> answered you.  Deal with the answer.:-)
>
> >  >   Of course, none of this addresses the question of preventative routine
> >  >health care which is where the real issue lies for the lower income
> working
> >  >people in America.
> >
> >  This would be that preventative routine health care that they can't afford?
>
>     Well Duh!  It wouldn't be an issue otherwise would it?
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/18/00 1:41:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Isn't there space enought for you Neanderthalian views in
> >  the corporate media, I think so.
>
>   I don't know, but there is certainly enough room in cyberspace for you to
> actually answer a question or clearly make your point.
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/18/00 11:32:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >  Doesn't seem that most Americans are not interested in this type of health
> >  care system.  It does seem that most Americans *in Congress* aren't
> >  interested, though.  Would the large wads of cash given to Congressmen and
> >  Congresswomen by HMOs have anything to do with that?
>
>    No.
>
> >  >   One may have a right to spawn but one does not have a right to demand
> > that
> >  >one's neighbors provide for and raise one's spawn.  Perhaps you would
> > explain
> >  >the logic of placing the demand on your neighbor that she pay for your
> >  >actions.
> >
> >  Sure.  It's called "society".
>
> > I don't use almost any of the roads in
> >  Australia.  Why should I pay for them?
>
>     I don/t know, Alister.  Do you think you should? Are you and your
> neighbors receive an economic benefit from roads?
>
> >  Why should I help pay for my
> >  neighbour's actions?  Because in a fair society we would help people before
> >  they starve to death.
> >  Allowing a child to be brought up in poverty is a
> >  less ideal situation than allowing a child to not grow up in
> >  poverty.
> >  Helping pay for childbirth is better than having people die
> >  during home births for lack of competent medical carers
> >  What about this
> >  don't you understand again?
>
>    Well, let's see if you understand, Alister.  Do you understand that there
> are responsibilities incumbent upon the individuals that make up the social
> construct called "society"?  Do you understand that a "society", that is to
> say a community or a group, consists of individuals who agree daily (perhaps
> grudgingly) to interact because it provides each with a benefit that is
> unavailable outside of the group.  But in doing so, the individual is not
> expected to become a burden to the group.  In short she carries her own
> weight.  This is the principled norm, but for those who are unable to meet
> this standard, the community assumes the unfulfilled obligations of that
> individual.  It should be considered the exception -- not the norm and
> certainly not a 'right'.
>
> >  I've dealt with it.  I'll do that by realising quite how evil your system
> >  is, and doing my bit to make sure we never get that bad.  Happy?
>
>     Quite.  And if you and your fellow Aussies do not want to emulate the US
> system then more power to you.  I doubt if there are even a handful of
> Americans that give a rat's patut about what type of health care system you
> and your fellow citizens elect to have.  It's your business.  I always marvel
> at the intolerant religious sense of moralism that pervades much of the
> socialist crowd -- especially the fundamentalist-like extremism of
> anarchists.:-)
>
> >  > >  This would be that preventative routine health care that they can't
> >  > afford?
> >  >
> >  >     Well Duh!  It wouldn't be an issue otherwise would it?
> >
> >  I'm amazed you even recognise it as a problem.  After all, if you can
> >  afford the care, who cares about anyone else?
>
>     If I could not recognize the problem I would not have brought it up,
> would I, Alister.  What is interesting is that people such as yourself have
> such a distrust and contempt for the working class that you think that unless
> you can employ the fascist tactic of using the policing powers of the state
> to expropriate money from your fellow citizens they would not voluntarilly
> contribute to a solution for those who cannot afford preventative health care.
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/19/00 1:20:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > My theory is entirely practical. If you do not pay tax, you cannot be said
> >  to be paying tax. Tax paid by your employer directly to the government
> >  cannot be said to be money paid by *you* to the government. It also cannot
> >  be said to be part of your wages, since it is not actually paid to you.
> >  Book-keeping entries notwithstanding.
> >
> >  You exchange your labour for the wages the employer pays you.
>
>    Oh my.  You are basically saying that taxes withheld from a paycheck and
> paid by an employer is really not money being taken from the employee.  It is
> in fact the employer's money and it is the employer alone who is paying this
> tax. Lets see how this 'theory' holds up in the real world. After having
> ordered my employer to deduct from my paycheck state and federal taxes for a
> year, the government informs me that I still owe $1040 dollars (yeah, I
> realize the irony of the amount.  The tax form we file is a form 1040).
> Notice that they did not say to my employer, "Ms. Employer, you must pay us
> an additional $1040 dollars of your money," but, instead, they said
> "Issodhos, mah man, you still owe us $1040 big ones!  Pay up!".  Apparently
> they see it as money that comes from my labor.  Now, lets say the federal or
> state legislature, in its infinite wisdom, decides to increase my taxes --
> does the employer pay the additional tax, leaving my paycheck at its prior
> amount?  No. My paycheck is reduced.  And if they actually reduce my tax
> rate, does the employer get to pocket the savings or does it show up as an
> additional amount in my paycheck.  Yes, it does.
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/19/00 2:20:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > You are quite wrong about most Americans not wanting universal health
> >  care, over 60% do, it's our ruler/owners who don't.
> >  The right wing respondant below by no means represents the majority
> >  of the US people.
>
>    Please feel free to provide the source of your "60%", who they were
> demographically, the actual question(s) asked of them, and if they were asked
> what it is they would take as a trade off for "universal health care".  And
> do please stop trying to start a flame war -- you would not look good as
> toast.;-)
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/20/00 6:54:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > I am enlightened!
> >  What is your approved hourly rate of pay at which we rabble may begin
> >  "making" babies?
>
>    As I said before, Ken, you are perfectly free to procreate to your heart's
> content,  But I don't think you should knowingly do so with the intention of
> demanding that your neighbors foot the bill for raising the tykes.
>
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/20/00 12:59:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Issodhos:
> >  > But in doing so, the individual is not
> >  > expected to become a burden to the group.  In short she carries her own
> >  > weight.  This is the principled norm, but for those who are unable to
> meet
> >  > this standard, the community assumes the unfulfilled obligations of that
> >  > individual.  It should be considered the exception -- not the norm and
> >  > certainly not a 'right'.
> >
> >  I can't think of a single example in any society where the individual
> >  carries there own weight. In the absence of any examples it then comes down
> >  to where the line is to be drawn - near to the 'you're on your own chum'
> end
> >  of the scale, in which case 'society' ceases to have any meaning for the
> >  individual so isolated, and the individual ceases to have any meaning to
> >  'society', or near the full-on expression of mutual aid (or, arguably,
> >  beyond that where the individual ceases to exist). So this 'principled
> norm'
> >  has no basis in reality, and 'exceptions' are just shades of difference
> >  around some generally accepted, or imposed, point. Perhaps you can provide
> >  an example of the individual who carries their own weight... as the 'norm'.
>
>    "Carrying ones own weight" refers back to comments I made relative to
> being economically productive.  I did not attempt to apply it to the extreme
> and I assume you are not doing so now in order to have a straw man to knock
> down.  Placed back into the context in which it was used, it means those
> adults who do not need to rely on the financial assistance of others to feed,
> cloth, shelter, and care for themselves and their family.  So, in many
> countries the examples you seek are a majority of the population.  But you
> are right -- it is a matter of where the line is drawn by the members of any
> given group that determines the responsibilities of the individual and the
> collective responsibilities of the group.
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
> In a message dated 5/22/00 1:50:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > I also resent the fact that on $5 per hour the below won't let me
> >  have children.  Who appointed you (and your ilk) God.
>
>    William, you may have all the children you want.  I simply questioned why
> you would do so after you stated that on your quote of $5 and hour you would
> not be able to provide for them.  I am not a burning bush so feel free to
> elaborate.:-)
> Yours,
> Issodhos