Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Libbyt who wrote (332)	11/30/2002 12:27:11 PM
From: JayPC	Respond to of 2534

Her surgery was scheduled through the government system with a 20 month waiting period. By using a fee for service physician, her surgery was completed in less than two weeks. In some provinces fee for some services are legal. An example: I thought I was in need of foot surgery to repair damage suffered while playing hockey. After waiting 3 weeks to see a specialist (not bad for Canada at all) the specialist gave me the options of: A. Schedule surgery through the public system, in approximately 4 months. With physio in that time frame, surgery may not be needed. B. Schedule surgery at his private clinic for Monday. Cost of $1600.00. After talking to a sports med doctor, I ended up choosing strictly physio and was fine after about 6 weeks. However, after paying more taxes than 98% of the people in Canada, I would still have to pay for that surgery if I wanted it in a reasonable amount of time. Had i needed major surgery, I'd have no choices at all. Wait 4 months. That example illustrates my point in the previous post as well. Using the private system would not of caused any other patients care to be slower or less effective. In fact a private and public system would reduce strain on the public system, speeding up waiting times dramatically. Better health care for everyone. Regards, Jay

To: Libbyt who wrote (332)	12/1/2002 3:57:12 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

"...The weaknesses of the commission, he said, have encouraged state prosecutors around the nation to pursue their own investigations of Wall Street and public companies, a shift in the balance of power that some experts criticize for leading to inconsistent results and balkanized rules. Message 18288043 Yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which I'm beginning to feel should be changed to reflect both a "weak" and "strong" law, not unlike those pertaining to nuclear forces in physics: in this case, the "Strong" Law of Unintended Consequences giving rise not only to unexpected and usually detrimental consequences, but to those very outcomes which the initiatives in contention were constructed to avoid in the first place. The SEC's purpose and (original) design was predicated upon the idea that a small, specialized federal body overseeing a number of industry-staffed self-regulatory organizations would best police the financial markets from a standpoint of cost effectiveness, efficiency, and so as not to stifle the growth of American capital markets with inevitably clumsy bureaucratic fixtures. Fixtures that, even seventy years ago - and more impressively after such a traumatic, public policy-inviting event as the Crash of 1929 was - the powers-that-be knew direct federal oversight would create. Fixtures that, above all and to their great credit, the orchestrating players sought to avoid. Instead, whether cursed by initial success or having become amtrakized (I am officially coining the adjective form of this proper noun here, today): the SEC has picked up more and more responsibilities over the years - regulating accountants, monitoring financial submissions of public companies, etc. And even as their budget has consequently ballooned, it is increasingly unable to fulfill even the basic regulatory duties with which it is charged. As a result, we're now seeing more federal government involvement, and of a less specialized nature. LPS5