Another step towards theocracy
- Thread starter Absinthe
- Start date
Scotchy
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 0
This is a very stupid arguement. But not for the reasons pointed out before. Allow me to shed light!
The spelling errors made by Eg are very easy to make. Look to your keyboard. X is near C , if you type Security fast many of the letters could reverse. If you are not a formal typist but have developed from a "hunt-and-peck" technique up to a speedier typist without goign the regular route, you get in stroke patterns. Common prefixes and suffixes become so habitual in their typing pattern that a mistake of this type is very common.
About his story. If you take the time to put together what he's saying, it comes out basically like this:
His Aunt was diagnosed with terminalcancer and given 7 months to live. The Doctors she saw in Canada wanted to treat her a month before her expected death date. So she went to the US to seek alternate care. The US doctors discovered that the cancer was operable and went right to it. She was able to afford the surgery with her savings (which is pretty admirable imo) and get her masectomy.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. His problem is that a person was talking about how great the Canadiam medical system is. He had a personal story of it being not so great. So he told it. I like to thin kthat people dont go out of their way to invent a cancer infected aunt to take a swat at the Canadian socialized healthcare system.
I think his point that makes the Canadian system look bad to him is that his aunt was misdiagnosed and schedualed for treatment so close to her projected death, whereas the US doctors were able to remove the cancer with much haste.
________
About this fellow that the topic is about. We all know this is bad, I cant frankly debate anything about it. It would just degenerate into "Yeah, this guy is ass... Theocracy... Bush is a monkey... MORE LIEK AMERKKKA, RITE GUYS" And who needs that?
There was a smaller story of a Pharmacist who refused to give birth control to a 33 year old woman on religious grounds. That can cause a stir im sure. But as the system is setup, Pharmacists dotn have to take the hypocratic oath... they arent bound by it. They are technically proprietors of a business, and as such have the right to refuse a sale for any reason they see fit.
At least that's how it works in the US.
Maybe that would be a better discussion topic? Might get a more varied viewpoint range.
The spelling errors made by Eg are very easy to make. Look to your keyboard. X is near C , if you type Security fast many of the letters could reverse. If you are not a formal typist but have developed from a "hunt-and-peck" technique up to a speedier typist without goign the regular route, you get in stroke patterns. Common prefixes and suffixes become so habitual in their typing pattern that a mistake of this type is very common.
About his story. If you take the time to put together what he's saying, it comes out basically like this:
His Aunt was diagnosed with terminalcancer and given 7 months to live. The Doctors she saw in Canada wanted to treat her a month before her expected death date. So she went to the US to seek alternate care. The US doctors discovered that the cancer was operable and went right to it. She was able to afford the surgery with her savings (which is pretty admirable imo) and get her masectomy.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. His problem is that a person was talking about how great the Canadiam medical system is. He had a personal story of it being not so great. So he told it. I like to thin kthat people dont go out of their way to invent a cancer infected aunt to take a swat at the Canadian socialized healthcare system.
I think his point that makes the Canadian system look bad to him is that his aunt was misdiagnosed and schedualed for treatment so close to her projected death, whereas the US doctors were able to remove the cancer with much haste.
________
About this fellow that the topic is about. We all know this is bad, I cant frankly debate anything about it. It would just degenerate into "Yeah, this guy is ass... Theocracy... Bush is a monkey... MORE LIEK AMERKKKA, RITE GUYS" And who needs that?
There was a smaller story of a Pharmacist who refused to give birth control to a 33 year old woman on religious grounds. That can cause a stir im sure. But as the system is setup, Pharmacists dotn have to take the hypocratic oath... they arent bound by it. They are technically proprietors of a business, and as such have the right to refuse a sale for any reason they see fit.
At least that's how it works in the US.
Maybe that would be a better discussion topic? Might get a more varied viewpoint range.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,315
- Reaction score
- 62
Scotchy said:
that's all fine and dandy but that doesnt explain the inconsistencies such as why they would delay an operation by 6 months. My father was diagnosed with a tumor and within a week and a half he had his operation, and it wasnt life threatening. Are you trying to tell me that a terminal case wouldnt get the same priority as a non-terminal case?
Scotchy
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not trying to tell you anything, capn. I'm just saying that his story isnt hard to understand.
I would ask how a situation like he described could arise myself. But as I proposed; I doubt this guy would set there and concoct a fake aunt to make a point about Canadian healthcare. There's no point to it other than if you treat it as a genuine story.
Stranger things happen every day, many times a day, all over the globe.
I would ask how a situation like he described could arise myself. But as I proposed; I doubt this guy would set there and concoct a fake aunt to make a point about Canadian healthcare. There's no point to it other than if you treat it as a genuine story.
Stranger things happen every day, many times a day, all over the globe.
