Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 10:32 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45665D70.AA196620(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>I don't accept that the US healthcare system is such a >>>disaster as several claim it is. >> >>I'm sure it's great for ppl who don't get ill. > > > Funny thing is, most of the proponents of the NHS _haven't_ said the US > health care system is a disaster as such - just that introducing an NHS > system would be better. > > /BAH is a good example of an odd one out - she rants about how bad the US > system is but any thing which changes it will just make it even worse (often > for random reasons) You've failed completely to understand her point. Her view is that for ordinary medical care there should be no insurance. There should be insurance in cases where medical care becomes financially catestrophic for median income people. This would keep routine and ordinary medical care affordable to everyone. That's pretty much how things were when she and I were kids.
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 10:33 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek70pm$8qk_013(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <1164297902.254938.218460(a)l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <45659BD4.C4D74C51(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >>> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >>> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. >>> > >>> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. >>> > >>> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a > good >>> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it >>> >is > for >>> >sure essentially 'no frills'. >>> >>> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a >>> uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. >> >>It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules in >>each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to >>that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide then? >>The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. > > It is run under the same laws. That is a uniform economy. Each > of our states have their own laws. Very few federal laws > supercede state law. Cases before our Supreme Court are cases > where the Feds want control and the states say no. > The law in Scotland is different from the law in England. Why do you think they are the same?
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 10:34 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45665783.7FFDB565(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Jamie wrote: >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Our post offices are also open till 5PM in most places. >>>>> >>>>>Is that supposed to be some kind of special US achievement ? Ours stay >>>>>open later than that ! >>>>> >>>>>Graham >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is there anything over there that is below standard or >>>>at least, your standard? >>>> >>>> You live in such a dream world, maybe you should >>>>step out side and smell the air, cause I think it stinks >>>>at times like it does anywhere else in the world. >>> >>>I was in the UK in 2000. The post offices closed at noon. >> >>The post offices here have never closed at noon. They keep normal shop >>hours. > > > I was in the US in 2005 and the post offices were closed. > > Granted it was a Sunday, but it carries as much weight (and relevance) as > unsettleds post. Wiht context clipped your style of conclusions become easy.
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 10:36 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1cd33$4566184a$4fe77e2$26508(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 23 Nov 06 15:09:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>I have yet to hear anybody help about this step to a dicatorship; >>>>it is very worrisome. >> >>>You must be an idealist Libertarian or something. As I've mentioned >>>here earlier, I grew up working the fields as a child to make the >>>money I needed to eat, lived in a home without walls, begged for food >>>at grocery stores, and I did NOT have medical care. There is NO >>>possible excuse for a society such as ours with children growing up as >>>I did, after my father died. It's inexcusable. Period. >> >>>It has nothing to do with dictatorship. It has everything to do with >>>being compassionate. Something, perhaps, you lack? >> >>The fact is we've made a point of looking after orphans >>since the earliest days of the US, so I really don't >>understand the basis for your history. > > > I understand. Were the conditions during your childhood inexcusable?
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 10:41
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ek6peu$8ss_004(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <ek5979$t07$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <ek4blc$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>> >>>>>Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to >>>>>have >>>>>confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of >>>>>local >>>>>control. >>>> >>>>Local economic control. When the politicians begin to control >>>>the economics, the system becomes communism. >>> >>>You need to break open a text book or dictionary. Communism and socialism >>>are two fairly different concepts. Communist tend to work towards large >>>organizations and central control. Not all socialists do. You've redefined socialism and communism to suit your arguments, making your points invalid. >>Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a >>large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any >>other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told >>what to do all the time. > Socialists do not generally require the control of dissenters. Socialists > _generally_ think more towards individual freedoms than communists. > Be carefull about the wide ranging assumptions you make here, if we put the > US under the spot light some of your "signs of communism" may become > visible. Once again, you've edefined socialism and communism to suit your arguments, making your points invalid. >>>Basically communists believe in "the efficiency of scale" like a religion. >>No. That's the sound bite. It is impossible to large and efficient >>with a central control. > No, that really is a sound bite. Childish rebuttal with no value. >>There have to be too many layers of >>managers to ensure obedience and that only the approved production >>is done. > Do you mean to say the US military is very inefficient? US military isn't a social organization. Once again your rebuttal is childish and invalid. >>Since approval has to arrive from a central point, all >>innovation has to be squelched. > Incorrect assumption. Bland dismissive comment with no advance to the discussion. >>Gradually, enforcement has to resort >>to killing to week out the independent thinkers and those who can't >>fake compliance. > Again, starting with incorrect assumptions tends to lead to false > assessment. Physician heal thyself. Wake, you're loony. |