To: Colleen
Patient Accounts, St. Bonifice Hospital
Hello Colleen,
Here is the documentation you requested. I would like for you to understand that I am doing my best to get you this information and that any delays are not due to malice or unwillingness to resolve this issue. The fact is that I have very little experience in handling the financial affairs of others and have been, until last February, completely estranged from my father for almost a decade (and therefore entirely ignorant of his circumstances). Please consider these points next time you feel it necessary to threaten me with collection agents. Intimidation, however veiled, is not required and if anything will erode my cooperative mood. I am handling these affairs out of the goodness of my heart, and I hope to accomplish them with honour. I am not holding out on you or lying to you in any way. I understand that a person in your position feels it necessary to suspend trust and to play hardball with tough cases from time to time, but in our dealings acting in this way is unnecessary and counterproductive. As frustrated as you may be in closing this account consider how frustrating it is for me to have to take on this burden with very little in the way of guidance or support and absolutely no gratitude or compensation. In our future dealings I would request that you view me as someone who is equally interested in completing this business to everyone’s satisfaction, not as some delinquent debtor in need of a shove.
Thank you and Happy Holidays,
Ryan Kinrade
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Chris Buors is a windbag
This is a letter written to the Winnipeg Free Press in response to local libertarian windbag Chris Buors' letter published on December 10, 2008 (his is copied first, followed by mine).
Chris Buors’ extreme fervor for the decriminalization of drugs is well documented, and it seems that he is never one to let facts get in the way of a good argument. His recent letter (Stop Demonizing Cocaine, Dec. 10) attempts to demonstrate that cocaine prohibition is a greater problem than use of the drug by pointing out that the countries where coca is legal do not experience the problems of the Western nations where it is banned.
A fundamental problem with this letter is that it obscures the fact that those who use coca in its native regions do not ingest it in the highly refined form we in the West do. Munching on coca or making it into tea produces a distinctly different effect than snorting lines of coke. Whereas cocaine is a highly addictive psychotic that can have devastating repercussions to one’s mental and physical wellbeing, coca in its natural form is a mild stimulant that does not come close to being the demon many of us know cocaine to be.
Buors also makes an unforgivable mischaracterization of the coca policies of Evo Morales. A quick internet search reveals that Mr. Morales’ policy is based on the use of coca in traditional forms and it’s very name "Coca Si, Cocaina No." (Coca Yes, Cocaine No) aught to give a very clear indication that Buors has misrepresented its intent.
Although I am frequently entertained by Mr. Buors’ rants I believe that the Free Press should be a bit more cautious in publishing them. As his brazen dishonesty in this instance reveals he cannot be trusted to present facts fairly in pursuit of his point.
Stop demonizing cocaine
Re: Cocaine dealer not entitled to sympathy, Dec. 7.
Robert Marshall tells us Kevin Hiebert is not entitled to sympathy because "Cocaine means fast money that destroys families (Hiebert's has disintegrated since his capture) and neighbourhoods. It is a major contributing factor to global social disorder characterized by kidnappings, beatings, amputations and murders." Marshall mistakes the consequences of cocaine with the consequences of drug prohibition. None of those evils go on in Peru where the coca plant is part of the cultural fabric rather than a demon to be destroyed at all costs. The proof is in the pudding in that cocaine used to be in a lot of consumer products such as Coca-Cola without any evidence of the mayhem Marshall writes about.
The fact of the matter is that drug prohibition, not drug use, has destroyed millions of lives all over planet Earth in a misguided attempt to control the natural right of man to self-medicate. The consequences of cocaine use are akin to the consequences of caffeine use absent the prohibition law as evidenced in Bolivia and Peru and everywhere else the plant is native. There are no kidnappings, beatings, amputation and murders attributed to coffee distribution since coffee is no longer outlawed as it once was. No one is tempted to smuggle coffee anymore, either.
Evo Morales, president of Bolivia and former union representative of the Coca Growers Association, has been trying to bring respectability back to the coca plant and showed up at the United Nations with one coca leaf to make his point. The biased reporting of prohibitionists unable to separate the effect of drugs and the effects of the law are proving to be the greatest challenge to ending worldwide drug prohibition as supported by Christian-based countries.
The government has no more right to control the substance people choose to use than the government has right to control ideas.
Chris Buors
Chris Buors’ extreme fervor for the decriminalization of drugs is well documented, and it seems that he is never one to let facts get in the way of a good argument. His recent letter (Stop Demonizing Cocaine, Dec. 10) attempts to demonstrate that cocaine prohibition is a greater problem than use of the drug by pointing out that the countries where coca is legal do not experience the problems of the Western nations where it is banned.
A fundamental problem with this letter is that it obscures the fact that those who use coca in its native regions do not ingest it in the highly refined form we in the West do. Munching on coca or making it into tea produces a distinctly different effect than snorting lines of coke. Whereas cocaine is a highly addictive psychotic that can have devastating repercussions to one’s mental and physical wellbeing, coca in its natural form is a mild stimulant that does not come close to being the demon many of us know cocaine to be.
Buors also makes an unforgivable mischaracterization of the coca policies of Evo Morales. A quick internet search reveals that Mr. Morales’ policy is based on the use of coca in traditional forms and it’s very name "Coca Si, Cocaina No." (Coca Yes, Cocaine No) aught to give a very clear indication that Buors has misrepresented its intent.
Although I am frequently entertained by Mr. Buors’ rants I believe that the Free Press should be a bit more cautious in publishing them. As his brazen dishonesty in this instance reveals he cannot be trusted to present facts fairly in pursuit of his point.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
prorogueys & sour cream
The Prime Minister's speech was not what I had hoped for. I felt he should have taken the occasion to be a bit more conciliatory, but instead he carried on with the trademark arrogance that led to this crisis of confidence in the first place. It was a very short speech that attacked the other parties and attempted to paint them as anti-democratic for pursuing an option that is well within the legal framework of our parliamentary system. His rhetoric about the Liberals uniting with separatists was just hollow fear-mongering and his statement that he hoped to work with the opposition parties was pure baloney. I'm guessing that there a lot of conservatives out there who are starting to see Harper's killer instincts and inflexibility as a liability, and if anything he is less appealing to Canadians of all stripes tonight than he was a week ago.
That said, I hope that the Governor General will allow him to prorogue parliament and give the Conservatives the opportunity to produce a real budget that is free from the incendiary proposals that poisoned the "economic update" the government delivered last week. Despite the Free Press's stated thirst for another election this would be the worst possible result. Both major parties need time to consider the future of their leaders since one has been totally rejected at the polls, while the other has proven through his actions as Prime Minister to be a total reject. Let the Conservatives get to work on something constructive with the knowledge that anything as radical and mean-spirited as what they have presented so far will result in the formation of a coalition that will rule in their stead.
That said, I hope that the Governor General will allow him to prorogue parliament and give the Conservatives the opportunity to produce a real budget that is free from the incendiary proposals that poisoned the "economic update" the government delivered last week. Despite the Free Press's stated thirst for another election this would be the worst possible result. Both major parties need time to consider the future of their leaders since one has been totally rejected at the polls, while the other has proven through his actions as Prime Minister to be a total reject. Let the Conservatives get to work on something constructive with the knowledge that anything as radical and mean-spirited as what they have presented so far will result in the formation of a coalition that will rule in their stead.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Waiting for Appointments
Recently as I sat waiting for a medical appointment that began more than 45 minutes after it was scheduled I was reminded of an editorial I had read in the Free Press a couple of months back. The piece was written by a person in automotive sales who complained that the practise of medicine was in desperate need of some of the customer service skills so essential to his business. His concern was primarily service in public hospitals, but having been so poorly attended to by my doctor on this day I am sad to report that this intolerable level of service extends into the realm of family medicine.
As someone with an inflexible work schedule that is based on hourly pay I do my best to schedule appointments so as to miss as little time as possible. However my doctor does not seem to appreciate that her way of doing business causes inconvenience for working people. This is demonstrated in the way that her office made me book two appointments in the same week in order to arrange a thirty minute physical exam. When I was ushered into my first appointment, after more than half an hour of waiting, I was told that this was strictly a “meet and greet” session where the doctor wanted to get to know about me and my health concerns. At no point did she think to apologize for keeping me waiting for thirty minutes or give any indication that she recognized my time as being as valuable.
After an interview that lasted less than half an hour I was told to return to her assistant’s desk to arrange a physical. I started to wonder just what the doctor was charging me for this inane song and dance, realizing that I have no power to control the services she decides to offer or what she can charge for them. My bill goes directly to the government, and any objections I might raise to her display of arrogance would be counter-productive. My only other choice was to roll the dice on another family doctor and risk more of my valuable time for someone who may or may not be more respectful. Reluctantly I booked another “appointment.”
On the occasion of my second visit my wait time was extended to 45 minutes. When I finally was ushered into her examining room she offered no apology and seemed a bit taken aback when I confronted her with the issue. She excused her tardiness by explaining a fire had blocked traffic on her route to work. I did see her arriving to the office at around 9 a.m. and did hear news reports of the fire she spoke of on my way to the appointment. However it was my view that her first priority on arriving late should be to get me into her examining room as quickly and apologetically as possible rather than having me sit for another fifteen minutes without any sort of communication. Instead she left me seething in the crowded waiting room forced to listen to a loud soft-rock radio station that cut out intermittently while her busy minions did their best to avoid eye contact.
Sadly, the lack of choice when it comes to medical services gives little incentive for medical practitioners to go that extra mile for their patients. I would gladly pay an additional appointment fee to reward a doctor who showed respect for my time as well as my health. But our system does not allow for this, nor do I have much chance of finding such a doctor except through trial and error. I do not believe my doctor is consciously tardy, but that’s just the point. She does not seem to understand or care that I have a life outside her waiting room, and I do not have any power to prevent her from continuing to waste my precious time.
As someone with an inflexible work schedule that is based on hourly pay I do my best to schedule appointments so as to miss as little time as possible. However my doctor does not seem to appreciate that her way of doing business causes inconvenience for working people. This is demonstrated in the way that her office made me book two appointments in the same week in order to arrange a thirty minute physical exam. When I was ushered into my first appointment, after more than half an hour of waiting, I was told that this was strictly a “meet and greet” session where the doctor wanted to get to know about me and my health concerns. At no point did she think to apologize for keeping me waiting for thirty minutes or give any indication that she recognized my time as being as valuable.
After an interview that lasted less than half an hour I was told to return to her assistant’s desk to arrange a physical. I started to wonder just what the doctor was charging me for this inane song and dance, realizing that I have no power to control the services she decides to offer or what she can charge for them. My bill goes directly to the government, and any objections I might raise to her display of arrogance would be counter-productive. My only other choice was to roll the dice on another family doctor and risk more of my valuable time for someone who may or may not be more respectful. Reluctantly I booked another “appointment.”
On the occasion of my second visit my wait time was extended to 45 minutes. When I finally was ushered into her examining room she offered no apology and seemed a bit taken aback when I confronted her with the issue. She excused her tardiness by explaining a fire had blocked traffic on her route to work. I did see her arriving to the office at around 9 a.m. and did hear news reports of the fire she spoke of on my way to the appointment. However it was my view that her first priority on arriving late should be to get me into her examining room as quickly and apologetically as possible rather than having me sit for another fifteen minutes without any sort of communication. Instead she left me seething in the crowded waiting room forced to listen to a loud soft-rock radio station that cut out intermittently while her busy minions did their best to avoid eye contact.
Sadly, the lack of choice when it comes to medical services gives little incentive for medical practitioners to go that extra mile for their patients. I would gladly pay an additional appointment fee to reward a doctor who showed respect for my time as well as my health. But our system does not allow for this, nor do I have much chance of finding such a doctor except through trial and error. I do not believe my doctor is consciously tardy, but that’s just the point. She does not seem to understand or care that I have a life outside her waiting room, and I do not have any power to prevent her from continuing to waste my precious time.
Political Rant
Stephen Harper continues to play the politics of provocation, even though he has just been re-elected to a minority government. This week’s economic update quite pointlessly included a poison pill whose sole aim was to goad the opposition. It intentionally stirred up ill-will by introducing a minimal cut to government spending that happens to be the lifeblood of the other parties.
With this admittedly brilliant tactical stunt Mr. Harper managed to embarrass the other parties, but he did not do much to flatter himself in the process. It serves to highlight his weakness for bullying, a trait that many Canadians find unappealing. It seems to be in Mr. Harper’s nature to be callous and to constantly in search of an advantage. As virtuous as cunning may be to certain ways of life, including politics, it doesn’t inspire much admiration, and in being so forthright about his evil ways Mr. Harper continues to evade the popularity he needs in order to form a majority government.
With this admittedly brilliant tactical stunt Mr. Harper managed to embarrass the other parties, but he did not do much to flatter himself in the process. It serves to highlight his weakness for bullying, a trait that many Canadians find unappealing. It seems to be in Mr. Harper’s nature to be callous and to constantly in search of an advantage. As virtuous as cunning may be to certain ways of life, including politics, it doesn’t inspire much admiration, and in being so forthright about his evil ways Mr. Harper continues to evade the popularity he needs in order to form a majority government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
