🚀 go-pugleaf

> > > 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.

No, you said, "We're talking communication, not rides to the doctor, and I
said, "EXACTLY", End of that point.  Let's move on.  I apparently left too
much context before.  I'll try not to confuse you in the future.

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

My argument? I've not got an argument.  I was referring to Mike's ...

> > 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.

One of what??? What is it you call one of them things that translates
medical information into ASL? I'd not know how to look one up in the phone
book.  I hope that Mike would, however.  After all, it's his "life or death"
we're talking about here ...

> > 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.

What's wrong with my interpretation of it.  Seems to me that Mike meets the
classic definition of a moralist, "A moralist is someone who makes rules for
other people to follow."  Mike is criticizing a stranger for not doing
something for him that he won't do for himself.  I'm just looking for
consistency 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.

Others have posted here that the law isn't all that clear on the subject
(hell, if the doctor is breaking the law, don't call a lawyer call the
cops!). And, he doesn't care enough to provide an interpreter.  He
criticizes the doctor for not doing something he won't do himself, and he's
the one who could live or die based upon the outcome.  Therefore, his logic
is flawed.

> > 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?

As if the doctor doesn't have anything better to do.  Again, how's he going
to find a good one with whom Mike can work?

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

Mike's complaint is a medical one, or he'd not be going to the doctor.  You
seem to be a "form versus substance" kinda guy; if it's the doctor's money
and the doctor found the interpreter, Mike won, and what difference does it
make what kind of translation he got? If Mike dies because the interpreter
mis-translated, can Mike's family then sue the doctor?

> > We were talking about Mike having the information to make life or death
> > decisions, weren't we???
>
> Still doesn't make sense.

Apparently not.  As long as Mike doesn't have to do the legwork of finding
an interpreter, then problem solved.  If he ends up "dead" right, he's still
right.

> > 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.

Yes, we were talking about the USA, and even there there isn't a level
playing field.  Not everybody can drink and party until they're 40, then
grow up to be president.  You've got to pick the right parents in order to
pull a stunt like that.

>  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.

Hey, it was Mike who "experienced a rapid disassembly of an elastic isomer
interfacial environmental barrier".  He's the one yelling for a lawyer.  Me?
Go look at my original post.  I'm behind him 100%.  I told him to sue the
bastards.  Yes, I've questioned the internal consistency of his original
argument (generally in response to your posts), but all I've done was
suggest that the rest of us with special needs be included as well.  If he
applied his logic consistantly, then he'd include the rest of us.

> Why do you care?

I tols you.  I don't see none too good.  I can't drive.  I can't communicate
with a doctor if I can't get to his place.  If the doctor has to arrange for
and pay for an interpreter for Mike, why shouldn't s/he have to arrange for
and pay for transportation for me? It's easier to find taxis than
interpreters, and I'd bet that taxis are generally cheaper.  The public
transportation is excellent around here, and doctors make house calls
anyhow, but I'll probably retire back to the States in a very few years, and
I'm planning for the future.

And what about you? I replied to Mike.  How'd you end up with a dog in this
particular fight?

> > > > 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.

OK, the kids of Spanish speakers almost always speak English.  Even the kids
of English speakers almost always speak English.  Where does ASL come into
this then? These Spanish and especially the "Native Americans" are Americans
in their 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.

So, you're viewing life as a two-story outhouse.  The sign on the top door
says "English speakers, Spanish speakers, and hey, just about everybody
else", and the sign on the bottom door says "Deaf".  And, your solution is
to reverse the signs? Mike has better access to health care than I do (or
did before I left) because he can just get in his car and drive to the
doctor's office.

But I wish you'd be consistent.  Above you said, "We're talking
communication ...".  Now you want to bring access into it.

> > > 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.

OK, then what happened in 2001 or 2000 doesn't matter.  More specifically,
it's March 31, 2002, as I write this.  What happened March 28 2002, doesn't
matter.  Any American who became an American by the close of business last
week is as "American" as anyone who's ancestors were hunting buffalo while
Columbus was out raising money ...

> > 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.

Lemme see.  I left the States in '92, so perhaps medical procedures have
changed since then.  At the time I left, however, doctors took care of
patients by appointment on roughly a "first come first served" (with
adjustments for medical emergencies) basis.  We'd also gotten a couple of
Doc In A Box walk-ins in my hometown, but still patients were seen in the
order they arrived.  Nobody sorted anyone according to immigration status or
hearing ability.  You're saying that's changed since I left?

> Are you saying we should provide for immigrants and just leave the Deaf
cut
> off just because teir Deaf?

Me??? Lord no! I'm just saying that we shouldn't provide for the deaf and
leave everybody else with special needs cut off.  If Mike's going to sue,
then the vertically challenged, the calorically gifted, the insomniacs, the
blind, the Native Americans, the non-English speakers, the Ebonics speakers,
and the Klingon speakers should all be paid for by the doctor.  In fact, the
financially challenged should be covered as well.  Why should the doctor be
charging anybody money? Shouldn't s/he pay for everything?

My only issue with Mike is his attitude that his life and death is someone
else's responsibility.  It wouldn't give me heartburn if the cost of his
interpreter was picked up, at least in part, by the government or his
insurance provider.  I just don't see a problem with Mike having to arrange
for one.  As you said, there's the yellow pages.  Mike should at least know
what to look for.

> Are you a Nazi?

I thought we'd agreed I'm a cynic.

Your last statement would seem to indicate that you're relatively new to
Unenet, so I'll take a break for a minute and give you a clue here.  One way
you can always recognize the person who is losing a Usenet "discussion" is
he's the first person to bring up Hitler and/or the Nazis.  That would
appear to be you in this case ...

Now we'll get back to the discussion.

> ASL has been proven to be a language.  Ebonics is not  a proven
> language.  Some claim it is other exerts say no.

And you'd not get any experts who'd say that ASL isn't a language? Seems to
me that if ASL is a language (I'm not saying it isn't) then you could even
make a good case for written English being a separate language.  And, it
seems to me that there was quite a bit of debate about ASL back then just as
there is about Ebonics now.  "Today's 'cult' is tomorrow's 'mainstream
religion'".

> I'm sure we all know where you stand on that.

I'm not sure who "we all" is at this point.  Even Mike seems to've lost
interest.  I suspect that he was just venting, and now he's calmed down and
we've seen the last of him on this subject.  Best I can tell, "we all" is
you 'n me (unless people are commenting on lists I don't receive), and you
seem too confused to know much of anything.

So, if Ebonics isn't a language, what do deaf former Ebonics speakers speak?
Is there an AASL?

> > > 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?

Why can't the ASL "speakers" learn English?

I've lived in Paris for 6 years now, and I'd still not trust my French in a
medical emergency.  There are damn near as many reasons why someone can't
learn a language as there are people who can't learn it.  Does that mean one
group's communication needs don't count?

> > > 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.

So was Cajun French and all the "Native American" languages.  The Spanish
spoken there is quite a bit different from what's spoken back in the "old
country" (or so I'm told), and even back in the "old country" there's
Castillian Spanish and another flavor whose name I've forgotten.  So what?
Remember, this is 2002 ...

> You do know that American's no longer speak the Queen's English, don't
you?

As friends from the UK often point out ...

But, American English is no more a separate language than is Ebonics ...

> > 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.

Then what's all this hassle I keep seeing on CNN about teaching Spanish in
schools?

> > > 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.

Hey, great! You're beginning to come 'round.  I was about to give up on you.

> However, most, like yourself, wil not even listen to their needs.

As I said, one of my great-grandmothers was a full-blooded Cherokee, and I
think there was quite a bit more Cherokee in my mother's side of the family.
Of course I'll listen to their needs.  Wasn't I encouraging Mike to sue on
their behalf? I want my share of one of those casinos ...

> > > 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.

OK, let Mike go to Dr. Society, and Dr. Society can pay for Mike's
interpreter and make all the arrangements.

I doubt that "Society" has screwed deaf people any more than it's screwed
blind people.  In fact, "society" used to put us in schools together and the
deaf kids would kick our asses.

But "society" didn't "screw" either deaf or blind people.  Yes, we've had
problems achieving our potential, but that was simply because "conventional
wisdom" was wrong about us; they didn't know what we could do, and until
recently there was little that could be done for some of us.  This does NOT
mean "society" didn't care.  It often cared very much.  Don't forget that
ADA, Affermative Action, Vocational Rehab, and other relevant legislation
had to be approved and supported by a majority, and all of us taken together
sure ain't that.  Many, or most, accidents and illnesses that now leave
"disabled" would, just a few years ago, have left "dead".  It is "society"
that changed that.

I told you before, there ain't a level playing field.  Put more bluntly,
shit happens.  We're all born with varying abilities; and varying lacks.
Some of those lacks are recognized as disabilities, and others aren't.
There are those of us with disabilities who're working while those with
20/20 and two good ears and legs are sitting home drawing welfare simply
because we have marketable skills and they don't.  It doesn't mean "society"
is "screwing" the rest.  I dislike that "let's blame society" attitude.
About the only group in the States which might have a point there are the
blacks, but for years those of us with disabilities (including the deaf)
have had Vocational Rehab, etc, while those who were healthy but
"financially challenged" had nothing.  I got to college based on VR.  Nobody
else in my family made it, and I'd sure not have gotten there on an academic
(or athletic!!!) scholarship.

> 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.

But "ASL as a second language" doesn't count.  Just because a person speaks
it doesn't mean s/he has to rely on it for "spoken" communications.  But
even if it is 3rd or 4th.  That's 3 or 4 other interpreters Mike's doctor
should be providing ...

> > 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?

That's what I'm talking about as well.  Mike's gonna provide for Deaf and
Spanish and Korean, and ... and I'm going to be behind him 100%!

> > 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.

No.  I'm trying to show you that the issue was clouded before I got here,
and me'n Mike are gonna clear it up when we get all these other people
"included" ...

> Deaf people can not flip a switch and start hearing and understanding
> the doctor.  The immigrants are in a different situation ...

Remember, this is 2002.  What does "immigrant" have to do with it? What has
happened before is irrelevant.  Do you think that a non-English speaker can
learn English on demand? A non-English speaker calls a doctor, the doctor
says, "Take two Berlitz and call me in the morning ..."

> ... and further, there are Doctors who speak their language.  Most of them
that is.

And, there are doctors who speak ASL.

> BTW, What immigrants have NO choice
> whether to come here?  Except for Taliban prsoners they all had a
> choice.

The Taliban haven't been given immigrant status.  That's why they're being
held in Cuba.

The under-age children of immigrants had no choice.  The spouses of
immigrants usually didn't (especially women, depending upon what part of the
world they were from).  Others (such as big time supporters of the US in
Vietnam, and other victims of political persecution) had no practical choice
except the choice of immigrating or dying.

> > 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.

If access isn't access, then what is it, and what is access??? I don't get
that one ...

> > 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?

No.  A straw-man argument is where you can't debate with the other person on
the merits of what they say, so you bring up other things that the person
didn't say, and argue with the person about those.  Oh, issues such as the
Nazis, providing for immigrants before the deaf, etc ...

> The issue is clear, or was, before you got involved.

The issue is still as clear as before.  Mike's going to sue to get doctors
to pay for him an interpreter, and I want him to make sure my transportation
is covered, as well as interpreters for all the other languages in the USA
which are spoken as a "first language" by at least as many people as ASL.
What's not clear about that?

> > > 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.

Nobody else has commented, and I doubt anyone is even reading at this point.
Perhaps we should both feel sorry for those who pay to download stuff like
this, but I expect you'd bust a gut if you didn't reply.