Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:02 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:34:14 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >They're spouting second hand Marx. > >"The central injustice of capitalism, according to Marx, >was in the exploitation and alienation of labor" I never said that, don't agree with that, and in case it is of any interest to you I disagree with almost everything that Marx spouted. Your attempts to brand me as a red hot socialist are as ludicrous as (say) me calling you a Nazi fascist swine. >People like Newsam try to distance themselves from Marx but >Marx was the one who first formalized the centralized ideology >of socialism. Well, other than the living examples of the >early Christians who practiced a form of communism. >It isn't all that unusual that few drive progress for its >own sake. The theme among blue collars was "pride in their >work." Those were actually a central theme in my education, >but I hazzard a guess that Newsam and his ilk never heard of >it and lacking an adequate understanding of mores and folkways >they have nothing other than "the greed of man" to hang >their collectivist hats on. Your lies (for such they are) do you no credit at all.
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:16 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:37:19 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <wnl5h.2390$6t.198(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >They don't have insurance, and cannot afford to go to a doctor. Pretty >> >simple, really. >> > >> > >> >> That is >> >> the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being >> >> based on whether you have insurance or not. >> > >> >I agree--so why not make sure everyone has the effective equivalent of >> >insurance...i.e., a nationalized health care system. >> >> Why not remove the insurance altogther? > >The NHS *isn't* an insurance funded system ! Although for a while it sort of pretended to be. You had to have a card with actual physical stamps stuck on it, called an NHI card, where NHI stood for National Health Insurance. The idea was that the contributions funded the whole thing, but that was a convenient lie, there is no ring-fenced fund at all.
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:19 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:48:28 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Ben Ben Newsam wrote: >> >> On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:47:09 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >Didn't you ever wonder where your sewer people put all of that >> >water that get flushed and put down the drains of your sinks, >> >baths, and showers? >> >> No, because I know exactly what happens to it. It goes to the sewage >> treatment works at Tinsley. > > And ends up as bottled water in France? ;-) LOL. Quite likely. Actually I don't even care if it comes back as French bottled water onto my own supermarket shelves, as long as the Tinsley sewage works do their job efficiently!
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:21 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:49:10 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Ben Newsam wrote: >> You don't have to cross the Atlantic to encounter confusion over the >> words "sink" and "well", (both nouns, and also verbs associated with >> the appearance or disappearance of water into or out of the ground). >> What we in England call a "sink", the arrangement in the kitchen for >> holding water that has taps (Damn! Faucets!) and a plughole, is known >> as a "well" in Scotland, or at least in certain parts of it. > > A tap is for threading holes. Yes we have those too. And let's not get into a long discussion about "cocks" and their various translations and meanings in various European languages...
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 19:29
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:38:56 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej78b0$8qk_005(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> Forcing >> everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. > >That's not what a nationalized health care system is. You have a complete >lack of understanding of what a nationalized health care system is. Until >you educate yourself on that, your protestations are pointless. There are various models for paying for health care on a national basis. There is the British model, where most health workers are employed by a national organisation funded out of taxation, and "free at the point of need", but at the same time there is a healthy private medical industry functioning in parallel for those who prefer it. There is also the German way of doing it; the effect is similar, but it is an insurance-based model. Employees are "forced" to take out medical insurance, which one and what the benefits are, is a private choice. For those who wish to take the legal minimum (and that is the majority in fact), there is the (do I have this word right, I wonder) "Allgemeineortskrankenkasse". Something like that, anyway. A "default" municipal insurance scheme that provides the legal minimum (which is quite a lot in fact). The unemployed and destitute etc are automatically subscribed to it free of charge. That's the way it was when I lived in Germany some years ago, everything may have changed since of course. |