🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rodney Wines" <rodney_usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3ca602d4$0$23005$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>...
> > One thing has nothing to do with the other, so it is irrelevant.  The
> > comparison is not valid.  We're talking communication, not rides to
> > the doctor.
> 
> EXACTLY! I can't communicate with the doctor from my living room.  Either I
> should be brought to the doctor, or the doctor should come to me.  It's all
> perfectly logical (or as logical as Mike's case ...).

I said it was irrelevant, you said, "EXACTLY".  End of that point. 
let's move on.

> 
> > > OK, if "it's the law" that doctors have to provide interpreters for the
> > > deaf, then that's the end of it, and how the country physicians in rural
> > > communities who've never seen a deaf person will deal with this is left
>  as
> > > an exercise for the alert reader, er, doctor.  Laws are based on who can
>  buy
> > > the most politicians, and logic doesn't enter into it.
> >
> > The law is logical.  You're just cynical.  If you were dying or had to
> > make a life or death decision, you, would want to know the full
> > details.  That's why there is a need for interpreters.  Writing,
> > lipreading, and pantomime are not good enough.
> 
> Yes, I'd want to know the full details.  That's why I would prefer to have
> an interpreter whose qualifications I knew rather than some "lowest bidder"
> who got drug in off the street.
> 

I don't know why you keep adding things to your arguement.  It makes
it impossible to understand you.

> > > If this is a grey area, however, as another poster pointed out, then I
>  think
> > > that my point is a valid one.  Of more interest is the logic (or lack
> > > thereof behind Mike's original rant, er, complaint.  The logic went
> > > something like this: Physicians are uncaring because they are unwilling
>  to
> > > provide him with an interpreter.
> >
> > He's right.
> 
> Talk about your basic "irrelevant"? You don't know the doctor(s) in
> question.  You have no idea what their mofives were, or how much effort it
> would be for them to comply.
> 

It doesn't take much effort.  The doctor is in the DC area.  Just
simply pick up the phone and call for one.  It's not hard.

> > >  Now, Mike is going to sue these same
> > > doctors by hiring a lawyer who refuses to provide an interpreter.
> > > Therefore, he is going to try to get justice by hiring an uncaring
>  lawyer.
> >
> > Mike didn't say he was ging to hire that lawyer.  He's still looking
> > from what I understand.  AND this was not part of his original
> > complaint.
> 
> No, it wasn't part of his complaint, but this behavior can be interpreted
> based upon his original logic (or lack thereof).
> 

His complaint is logical, your interpretation of it is not.

> > > Furthermore, Mike isn't willing to pay for an interpreter himself, so he
>  is
> > > uncaring about himself.
> >
> > You obvioously don't get it.  The ADA is about access.  Giving him
> > access to the same care that you get.  It has nothing to do with
> > whether he cares for himself or not.
> 
> Of course it does.  He claims that a total stranger doesn't care about him
> because that stranger won't provide him with an interpreter at the
> stranger's expense.  Therefore, Mike doesn't care about himself because he
> won't provide himself an interpreter at his own expense.  If he can judge
> the doctor's caring based upon the doctor's actions, then we can judge Mike
> based on his.  When we're talking "life or death", we're talking Mike's here
> ...
> 

The law says that the Doctor pays.  So Mike does have a good reason to
complain.  He cares enough to insist on an interpreter.  Mike cares
for himself.  Logic.

> > > I also can't understand why the guy'd want a total stranger discussing
> > > intimate medical details with his doctor.
> >
> > Perhap he has no choice.
> 
> If he can't find an interpreter, and he is a deaf person who is presumably
> familiar with the resources available to the deaf community, then how could
> he expect a doctor who probably never even saw another deaf person to do so?
> 

The yellow pages?

> > > If the doctor arranges an
> > > interpreter, Mike has no clue what kind of person he'll get.  The
> > > interpreter could've come in dead last in his ASL As A Second Language
> > > class, and not be good at making medical information understandable.
> >
> > Certification is supposed to ensure that each interpreter has a
> > certain amount of qualification.  If the interpreter doesn't measure
> > up then that's a separate issue.
> 
> Certification means the interpreter met MINIMUM requirements at SOME time in
> the past.  It does NOT say anything about whether he did better than that,
> how careful he is, how "current" his skills are, or how well he'll
> communicate with Mike personally.
> 

As I said, a separate issue.  This is a certification issue, not
relevant to Mike's complaint.

> > > Yes,
> > > it's true that doctors bury their mistakes, but patients aren't so
>  lucky.
> > > Somebody else has to bury theirs, and the chore usually is left to the
> > > immediate family.
> >
> > What are you talking about?  This is a totally different subject,
> > again.
> 
> We were talking about Mike having the information to make life or death
> decisions, weren't we???
> 

Still doesn't make sense.

> >   Where I live, I'm faced with the problem of finding
> > > doctors who speak English.  I went to a lot of trouble to make sure I
>  could
> > > find one I could communicate well with.  There's no way I'm going to
>  trust a
> > > translation to someone whose abilities I'm not familiar with.
> >
> > Cool, you've got a choice, many don't.
> 
> Hey, we've all got chances many don't.  Mike is whining to the world on his
> computer about how he's going to sue some doctors, and more than half the
> world's population has never made a telephone call. 

We're not talking about the rest of the  world, we're talking about
the USA.

 In case you've never
> heard, "Space is a vacuum because the whole world sucks."  Get over it.  We
> didn't get a level playing field, and we ain't gonna.  If Mike can afford a
> computer and access time, he can find an interpreter in Northern Virginia.
> There are parts of the US (and most of the rest of the world) where that's
> not true.
> 

You get over it.  I don't see why you're blowing a gasket over this
issue.  Why do you care?

> > > Both Spanish and Ebonics are "spoken" by Americans.
> >
> > Yes but Spanish originated from elsewhere.
> 
> And English didn't????

Again you confuse the point.  Check your calendar, it's 2002, you
know.  When spanish speakers have kids guess what language the kids
speak?  In the USA it's almost always English.  If I move to France
it's my problem to find an interpreter or a doctor.  That's not the
same as an American in his own land.

> 
> > Most who speak Spanish also speak English
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of Americans who speak Spanish and
> don't speak English is higher than the percentage of Americans who speak ASL
> and don't speak spoken English.

Well, the Spanish speakers can be taught English.  So far the American
education system has failed at teaching English to the Deaf.  They've
improved but  still not there yet.  So someone from another country
has better access to health care than a Deaf American.  That's wrong.

> 
> > Those who don't are immigrants.  They brought
> > their own problem.
> 
> We're all immigrants.  I've got one great-grandmother who was Cherokee, but
> according to DNA tests I read about, even the "native Americans" arrived in
> four separate migration waves.

Sorry that is not the same thing that I just said.  It's 2002 now.

> 
> But the point is irrelevant.  As Americans, no matter how they became
> Americans, they're entitled to the same protection as the rest of us.  You
> don't like immigrants, that's your problem.
> 

No, I didn't say I didn't like immigrants.  However, we should take
care of who lives here first before those who come later.  Are you
saying we should provide for immigrants and just leave the Deaf cut
off just because teir Deaf?  Are you a Nazi?

> > As for Ebonics, bahahaha, that is NOT a language.
> 
> Whether or not I agree with that will remain a mystery for now, but I will
> say that there are those who claim otherwise (with a straight face).  Just
> what is a language anyhow? What makes ASL a language, tacking an "L" on the
> end? If ASL is a language (and I'm not saying it isn't), we could claim that
> written English is a separate language.
> 

ASL has been proven to be a language.  Ebonics is not  a proven
language.  Some claim it is other exerts say no.  I'm sure we all know
where you stand on that.

> > Deaf who speak ASL are Americans, born and raised here.
> 
> Except for the immigrants who learned it ...

If they learned it why can't the hearing immigrants learn English?

> 
> > The speak a language developed here.
> 
> And English speakers do not, so we don't have to worry about doctors
> speaking English.

American English was developed here.  You do know that American's no
longer speak the Queen's English, don't you?

> 
> >   Spanish was an
> > > "American" language in many parts of the US long before English was.
> >
> > NOT AS the United States.  You're talking about prior to that.
> > Further, that is so long ago in time as to be irrelevant to today's
> > needs.
> 
> Much of the southwestern US was already settled by Spanish speakers at the
> time the area became US states.  They didn't instantly switch to English,
> and some haven't done so yet.  Whether or not this is "irrelevant to today's
> needs", it is NOT irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  These are Americans
> for whom life and death is as important is it is to Mike.
> 

Where are these people?  If you go there you'll find that they know
English and those who don't just got here.

> > The only people who can complain are Native Americans.
> 
> OHMYGOD!!! I FORGOT!
> 
> Now how many Native American languages are there? There must be a dozen or
> so still spoken somewhere.  Every doctor must obviously have an interpreter
> available for each of them.  Thank you for reminding me.
> 

Yes, they also have a right to complain.  Just like the Deaf. 
However, most, like yourself, wil not even listen to their needs.

> > Immigrants.  They brought their own problem.  They will have to learn
> > English or go home.
> 
> Deaf people.  They brought their own problems. ... :-)

No, they didn't  Society has screwed them for years, let sciety pay to
fix it.

> 
> > > Well, the world took us at our word on that one ...).  I don't know the
> > > statistics, but I'd bet that many (if not most) of these languages are
> > > "spoken" by a higher percentage of the population than is ASL.
> >
> > No ASL is more widley spoken than any of those, save Spanish.
> 
> I don't believe you.  Where do you get your numbers from?

I'll have to dig up my source but ASL was the 3rd or 4th most widely
spoken language last time in the USA, the last time I checked.

> 
> And, just speaking ASL doesn't count; there are many people with normal
> hearing who learn ASL for various reasons.  My brother learned it because
> there was a deaf woman who attended his church, and the church offered to
> teach it to anyone in the congregation who was interested.  I'm talking
> about people who can't hear and/or speak and for whom ASL is their method of
> "spoken" communication.  I wouldn't expect a doctor to provide a Spanish
> interpreter just because a patient had the ability to speak Spanish.
> 

I'm talking about providing for Deaf people, not hearing people who
can sign.  Where the heck do you come up with these phony arguments?

> > >So, why
> > > should ASL be provided for when the othars are not? Why shouldn't the
>  person
> > > needing an interpreter be responsible for providing one (assuming anyone
> > > would be willing to trust an interpreter provided by someone else with
>  life
> > > and death information)?
> >
> > Because they have no choice.  They are born and raised here.  This
> > their home.  They ought to have access before immigrants, at the
> > least.
> 
> Last I heard, there was no official American language.  And, a lot of
> immigrants (and all Ebonics speakers) are in the US because they had no
> choice.
> 

Again you're clouding the issue up.  Deaf people can not flip a switch
and start hearing and understanding the doctor.  The immigrants are in
a different situation and further, there are Doctors who speak their
language.  Most of them that is.  BTW, What immigrants have NO choice
whether to come here?  Except for Taliban prsoners they all had a
choice.

> > > You quoted my whole post and added, what, 5 lines total? Unless you take
>  the
> > > time to show how my comments are irrelevant, you've done nothing but
>  state
> > > an opinion (or waste our time, depending upon how charitable your
>  readers
> > > are).
> >
> > It is irrelevant and a waste of time explaining that to you.
> 
> If you'll permit me to translate that into English, you're saying you can't
> explain it, so you'll try to claim it's irrelevant.
> 

No it's a waste f time is what I said.  However, I did explain it
anyway.

> > We're talking about communication.  Physical access is a whole different
> > issue.
> 
> And the ADA doesn't deal with physical access? Access is access; physical or
> verbal.  You're just as dead if you get the wrong information.

There are different types of access.  Access is not Access.

> 
> > You're just throwing in other situtations to try and confuse
> > the real issue.
> 
> No.  I'm throwing in other situations to try and show that the real issue is
> already confused.  This problem isn't as black versus white, or good versus
> evil, as Mike has tried to claim.

Nope, you're throwiing in dozens of different arguments to try and
confuse the issue.  Isn't that what's called Straw-man arguments?  The
issue is clear, or was, before you got involved.

> 
> > Sorry, didn't work with me, at least.
> 
> Doesn't appear to have, Scott.  I think I got to you a bit late.  The damage
> had already been done ... :-)

I'm glad you didn't get to me.  I'm concerned about those who you did
get to.