"I really respected your opinion until your previous post."

It's always easier to respect an opinion that agrees with yours. It's more challenging to respect an opinion that disagrees, but does so with good reason.


"So, if he doesn't berate me, then take a cue: I don't expect it from you."

You must be using some definition of "berate" with which I am unfamiliar.


"Go ask this question to your children or direct reports, not me."

How do you expect me to find out what kind of information you have at your disposal if I do not ask? I think you're reading malicious intent into simple questions, where that intent is not evident.


"It's not a question of me not following the news, since I already live in Canada and work in healthcare."

I suppose the fact that every year people are laid off by companies in dire financial trouble that they thought were doing extremely well doesn't give you a hint for why living in Canada and working in healthcare doesn't make me think you know everything there is to know about the financial status of the healthcare industry in Canada. At least, what you're saying seems to indicate that you haven't gotten such a hint. I haven't been able to figure out why, though.


"Or, in your case, ones that feed your obvious hatred of socialism."

Your dismissive -- and fallacious -- approach to arguments with which you disagree does nothing to endear you to me.


"What you fail to realize is that the news in general is quite bias and does distort people's perception of reality."

Where you you get your secret knowledge of what I do or do not realize?


"Also, the news mentions that Canadian IT professionals go to U.S. never to return. But, is the IT market here collapsing? No, because enough immigrants and new graduates come to fill the void."

Has it occurred to you that the IT job market is hostile to local talent -- in part because of immigrants? The fact that enough enter that market to fill the void of people fleeing the market does not suggest to me that the market is healthy. A high turn-over rate for skilled work is always a sign that something is wrong.


"What is your point? And how exactly does this development differ from what's happening in any other industry, especially the mass consolidation among banks and investment firms in the American financial industry happening now?"

What makes you think that it has to be different from the way the US financial industry is imploding to be a sign that there's something wrong?


"For your information, a well-known healthcare leader just offered me a job in San Diego. My contact there warned me that the company is undergoing reorgs."

Good for you. On the other hand, it's a common tactic for a company in trouble: fire the high-paid long-time experts, hire new people who don't draw as much salary because they don't have as much experience, or new people who they feel they can use to replace several of the old-timers at once. I also didn't suggest that reorganization always portends ill -- but then, you didn't bother to think about the implications of my question before you just decided you knew everything going on in my head, and that it must all be intended as some kind of insult, regardless of the actual words used.


"Who is to say whether a reorgs is good or bad until after it happens?"

Whether or not a reorganization effort is good has nothing to do with whether or not it was undertaken because of problems in the organization itself.


"And so what about the numbers of highly qualified Canadian immigrants work in their field of choice? Then, it must also be a problem in the U.S. where ironically, even some caregivers at hospitals can't get health coverage, if affordable at all."

You may have to clarify that statement. I don't see what it has to do with what I asked at all.


"True, but the news also mentions a growing trend of American patients flying to countries such as Thailand and India for medical procedures. Do you know why?"

I know the reasons in many cases. I also know that there's more at work there than the eeeevils of capitalism.


"But, the point is who cares if the service is available when it isn't affordable? It's like flaunting candy to a sugar-addicted child who is not allowed to eat it."

Who cares if the service is affordable when it isn't available?

In any case, if you bothered to actually argue the case with me rather than attack straw men and assign insulting, malicious intent to those who do not bear it, you might eventually find out what I actually think -- which is, apparently, mostly unrelated to what you have chosen to believe I think.


"It's one thing to have a healthcare system that is actually trying to help everyone with some services which are somewhat flawed."

It's quite another to . . . oh, wait. No, it's exactly the same as having a healthcare system that is trying to help everyone, but failing, and pretending that trying is good enough to ignore the negative effects of that failing system. There's more to consider than simply whether the system fails to suck worse than a neighboring system (in some ways) in determining whether it's a good system.


"I have left 1 project because it was an outrageous and dishonourable waste of taxpayers' dollars."

Good for you. Clearly, you are not a direct part of the problem.


"Not once I did imply perfection, just an improvement over the one in the U.S. in many ways."

Considering I never implied perfection (or even overall, imperfect superiority) in the US system in this discussion, I think your reaction to what I said is pretty funny.


"If you're really so well informed, then why don't get your facts from a first-hand source (i.e. Canadian friends) instead of allowing the news to shape your twisted world view?"

If you're really so well informed on where I get my facts, what I know, and how evil and condescending I am -- why don't you just have your conversation without me? You clearly don't need me to say anything to decide what I do and don't want to say.


"I mentioned that some healthcare professionals are leaving Canada, just not the majority as you claim."

I did not say "majority". The options, as I see them, are three-fold:

1. You don't know what majority means.
2. You jumped to a conclusion based on nonexistent evidence.
3. You decided to just make up a bunch of nonsense because it's easier to argue against than what I might actually say.
4. You just have some cartoonish image in your head of the incredible evil of people who disagree with you.


"The American dream is quickly becoming a nightmare for many."

No kidding.


"This quote really doesn't deserve a response."

It's interesting how you expect me to take your personal experience as the final authority on the quality of healthcare in Canada, but you think my statements of personal experience don't deserve a response.


"Prove me right."

Go away. You accuse me of insult and condescension based on absent evidence of behavior I didn't exhibit, then spend the entire remainder of your lengthy diatribe insulting me and condescending to me.

I do not respect your opinion, based on that performance.