quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

The difference willbuer is that you are presenting us stories based on "somebody I know said they knew somebody who said....." Surely even you can see how flimsy that is in the way of evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

The difference willbuer is that you are presenting us stories based on "somebody I know said they knew somebody who said....." Surely even you can see how flimsy that is in the way of evidence.

Since these are personal experiences, not second hand stories, youre totally wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

The difference willbuer is that you are presenting us stories based on "somebody I know said they knew somebody who said....." Surely even you can see how flimsy that is in the way of evidence.

Since these are personal experiences, not second hand stories, youre totally wrong.

...so you're the head of the alleged household of somewhere where your son apparently stayed?
No?
Oh, then well they may be personal experiences, but they aint yours...........hence second hand stories. You may be educated in math, but your english sucks.

Now go to the 'wings of change in Iran' thread, and answer the direct question you were asked repeatedly there. That way, you may attempt to claw some shred of credibility back. Because right now all you're doing is confirming your apparent intellectual cowardice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


No, they are second hand stories to you, they were first hand to me. The definition of "First hand" is that the information comes directly from the person experiencing it, not that you experienced it yourself.

"first-hand
Adjective
obtained directly from the original source
Adverb
1. directly from the original source "


Now who's English sucks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


No, they are second hand stories to you, they were first hand to me. The definition of "First hand" is that the information comes directly from the person experiencing it, not that you experienced it yourself.

"first-hand
Adjective
obtained directly from the original source
Adverb
1. directly from the original source "


Now who's English sucks?

....yours.

Are you the original source? No, they allegedly happened to someone you know. Hence second hand.

Intellectual cowardice and an all too apparent lack of reading comprehension. Good job you're good at math

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No, they are second hand stories to you, they were first hand to me. The definition of "First hand" is that the information comes directly from the person experiencing it, not that you experienced it yourself.

"first-hand
Adjective
obtained directly from the original source
Adverb
1. directly from the original source "


Now who's English sucks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


See the post above.

I received the information from the original source...I was there. It was first hand TO ME.

Not even a good attempt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Since these are personal experiences, not second hand stories, youre totally wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

None of you guys are getting headaches......the wall doesn't seem to be fazed in the least,but go ahead keep banging your heads against it...perhaps it will fall down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

If there was a reason that my mother called me "bullheaded" and 'hard-headed', I guess this was it. *LOL*

*looking to see if there's a dent in the cement yet*

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No, they are second hand stories to you, they were first hand to me. The definition of "First hand" is that the information comes directly from the person experiencing it, not that you experienced it yourself.

"first-hand
Adjective
obtained directly from the original source
Adverb
1. directly from the original source "


Now who's English sucks?

To your readers, they are 2nd-hand stories and are considered with reduced validity. Sorry, but that's how it works. which is exactly what I said. thank you for agreeing with me

On the other hand, a number of individuals here, both American and Canadian, have shared 'first-hand' stories... things that actually happened -to them- or their immediate families in-residence, not to someone else, living elsewhere, who then -told- them about it, and these first-hand stories contradict your 2nd-hand stories. which doesnt make them any more or less representative of what is happening.

So... do you have any first-hand experience to share? Something that happened directly to -you- or your kids or your mate or whatever in the Canadian Healthcare system that would validate your accusations and implications about Canadian health care? Oh, wait... you're American and don't -have- any direct experience with the Canadian Health Care system.

How about experience with the American health care system? Have you been hospitalized, spent time in an ICU and seen the copays and non-covered expenses rack up? No, because I paid for coverage, and sacrificed some other things I would have loved to have had.Do you have a chronic illness requiring ongoing medical care? YesHave you ever been denied care?  No, and legally no one can be denied careHas a small company you've worked for ever lost their insurance because you were an employee and had serious health issues, because the payouts for your care cut into the insurance company profits? Sorry, its too early in the morning to try and figure out what this is supposed to mean

Yeah, thought so.

quote:

Canada

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

The only difference is who makes the decision, you or a bureaucrat.

The point you seem to miss willbuer (well one of many to be honest) is that it doesn't have to be that way. In Canada it is me and my doctor who decide what treatment I need, not some bureaucrat.

We've already discussed Canada ad nauseum. You and your doctor are welcome to decide on a course of treatment, and then you are welcome to wait 6 months to 2 years to get it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

Canada

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

The only difference is who makes the decision, you or a bureaucrat.

The point you seem to miss willbuer (well one of many to be honest) is that it doesn't have to be that way. In Canada it is me and my doctor who decide what treatment I need, not some bureaucrat.

We've already discussed Canada ad nauseum. You and your doctor are welcome to decide on a course of treatment, and then you are welcome to wait 6 months to 2 years to get it.

It seems to me that you are talking about the US here... Because it's in the USA where you have to wait for HMO approval.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

How about experience with the American health care system? Have you been hospitalized, spent time in an ICU and seen the copays and non-covered expenses rack up? No, because I paid for coverage, and sacrificed some other things I would have loved to have had.Do you have a chronic illness requiring ongoing medical care? YesHave you ever been denied care?  No, and legally no one can be denied careHas a small company you've worked for ever lost their insurance because you were an employee and had serious health issues, because the payouts for your care cut into the insurance company profits? Sorry, its too early in the morning to try and figure out what this is supposed to mean

Yeah, thought so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

How about experience with the American health care system? Have you been hospitalized, spent time in an ICU and seen the copays and non-covered expenses rack up? No, because I paid for coverage, and sacrificed some other things I would have loved to have had.Do you have a chronic illness requiring ongoing medical care? YesHave you ever been denied care?  No, and legally no one can be denied careHas a small company you've worked for ever lost their insurance because you were an employee and had serious health issues, because the payouts for your care cut into the insurance company profits? Sorry, its too early in the morning to try and figure out what this is supposed to mean

Yeah, thought so.

You mean, you never had to pay a copay? Have I paid them? Of course. The question was did they "rack up". The answer is no, thats what Out of Pocket maximums are for. How much did you pay for your coverage? Currently about $9,000 family and $4500 individual. And would you care to share the law that says that insurances can't deny care?Insurance companies don't provide care, they provide coverage. A hospital cannot deny care for inability to pay. Surely you cant have missed that in the debate over illegal aliens.