Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 11:05 In article <MPG.1fd11128aed44820989c5b(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ek79lm$r6e$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> In article <3fcbb$45647f3d$4fe77c5$17560(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> > >> >> In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> > >> >>>>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples >> where >> >>>>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >> > >> >>>Have you considered that people should plan ahead? >> > >> >> Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? >> > >> >Where necessary and it isn't part of a permanent scheme, sure. >> > >> >> AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn >> >> "plan ahead"! >> > >> >AT&T's former monopoly was licensed and regulated. They >> >eventally voluntarily gave it up in order to be permitted >> >to invest their profits in something unrelated to >> >their primary business. >> > >> >> Just in case you haven't been paying attention, it was a gov't lawsuit that >> broke them up. >> >> >And just in case you haven't been paying attention, the >> >phoenix is arising out of its ashes. >> > >> >> Yep, under the Bush administration, which lets business do whatever it wants. > >Oh, is that why the Enron, Tyco, and Adelphia executives are going >to prison. > >Do grow up! > Name one merger the Bush DOJ has objected to. One monopoly they've sued to break up. OTOH, look at all the letting companies cut national forests, drill and mine anywhere, emit mercury, emit more pollution (in the name of "it's just maintenance"), not have to pay into Superfund, ...
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 11:07 In article <MPG.1fd1133a687980b3989c5d(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <45673A08.AADD3B40(a)hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> krw wrote: >> >> > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >> > > > >delved into why that is. >> > > > >> > > > It's possible that medical technology is too good. >> > > >> > > In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? >> > >> > Drugs in the inner cities, mainly. >> >> I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into it. > >The mothers are crack whores who don't seek medical care (they >would be found to be crack whores). These mothers then give birth >to crack addicted infants, usually prematurely and beyond hope, >though everything possible is still attempted. >> >> It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to social >> issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these. > >Socialism is worse, as evidenced by "The Great Society", which was >the direct *cause* of much of this mess. > The US has never tried socialism. And I fail to see how providing food and medical care for children has made "a mess."
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 11:08 In article <MPG.1fd113dc48435be3989c5e(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ek79n9$r6e$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> In article <8381b$456480b7$4fe77c5$17599(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> > >> >> In article <ek1fi2$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >>>This is >> >>>the road to dictatorship and communism. >> > >> >> A commie under every bed. Wondered when the far right mantra would emerge. >> > >> >Funny thing, we have an almost meaningless piece of a curve >> >describing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is >> >dubbed a second order polynomial predictive of ecological >> >disaster, but that's PC and acceptable. A warning that >> >nationalizing private industry is a step on the path to >> >dictatorship and communism isn't PC so it is subject to >> >ridicule. >> > >> >Lemmings. >> > >> Who's nationalizing private industry? The insurance companies would still be >> there, selling supplemental insurance. Just like they do to Medicare >> recipients. >> >Not under "Hilliary Care", the only seriously considered >"solution". The entire US health care system (17% of the GDP) >would have been nationalized overnight. It would have made private >practice *ILLEGAL*. > >How soon they forget... > How often they lie... That's totally false. The Hillary plan was for a national single payer, not national health care. As I said, the right is pathological when it comes to lying about the Clintons.
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 11:11 In article <MPG.1fd116de3de5958c989c61(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ek7a0l$r6e$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> In article <c7c7a$456495bf$4fe7432$18128(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:03:42 +0000, Eeyore >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>unsettled wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>NHS has not >> >>>>yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more >> >>>>decades. >> >>> >> >>>60 years is enough to prove the point imho. >> >>> >> >>>Graham >> >> >> >> >> >> What all this discussion shows is how any excuse is found/made, by >> >> some US folks, for not doing something that has been working pretty >> >> well for a very large number of people and for keeping a system that >> >> most people WITHIN it as practicing clinicians seem to agree is "in >> >> crisis" here. >> >> >> >> Bizarre. >> > >> >Let's start with NHS not having 60 years experience. That >> >would have given it a birthdate of 1946. >> > >> >Next, a goodly number of people living in the FSU and >> >Warsaw Pact nations say that life was better for them >> >under the old system than it is being liberated and >> >responsible for themselves. Lemmings, all. >> > >> >Much, but not all, of the "crisis" is as BAH describes >> >it. The fact that the healthcare system as it exists in >> >the US has its share of problems is no surprise. Every >> >business as extensive as healthcare is, that is, touching >> >virtually *every* member of society, is bound to have some >> >problems. >> > >> >The cries calling for the US to shift into a nationalized >> >socialist healthcare system is the direct equivalent of >> >throwing out the baby with the bathwater. >> > >> >> Sigh. A single payer is NOT "socialist healthcare." Socialist insurance, >> maybe, but I guarantee you, most people think better of the gov't than >> insurance companies. > >....until they have to deal with the government. I'd rather do that than deal with Aetna or Blue Cross. At least I can call my Congressman for help if I need it with the fed. gov't. > >> >It is my opinion that we need the AMA or some other >> >similar organization to work towards improving what >> >we have. In my case the healthcare system has been >> >working well 99% of the time. >> >> Not if you're middle class, not if you're the working poor, not if you're >> unemployed, not if you work for a small business which provides no >> insurance... > >Should have graduated high school, eh? My son and his fiance both >have health care, at "middle/low-class" wages. Many don't have >insurance because they *choose* not to have it (why bother, they'll >get cured anyway). Oh BS. Not this right-wing "the poor are poor because they deserve it" idiocy. You really are cruel, uncompassionate, uncaring, and terminally stupid! > >> >I'm looking for an >> >improvement on that, not the experiment run amok >> >that's being proposed. >> > >> >> It's not an experiment. We know from Europe and Canada that system works >> better than ours -- it covers everybody AND costs less. > >> >We don't have a universal set of state laws in the >> >US. Why does anyone suppose we'd be ready to >> >undertake a massive centralized healthcare planning >> >scheme for those aged birth to 65? It is bad enough >> >we have one for folks over 65. >> >> Yeah, OK, propose doing away with Medicare and see how far you get. > >It would have been fine if Medicare never existed. I take that back; you've topped your idiocy in the same post. >This part of >the health care system *was* nationalized, which took the insurance >these people had, away. > >> >It seems to be >> >working, but the principles involved aren't anywhere >> >close to ideal when we consider the principles on >> >which the US is founded. >> > >> >> Oh BS. The colonists banded together for all kinds of things -- schools, >> utilities, even common grazing lands. Stuff you'd call "socialism." > >The Pilgrims at Plymouth rock starved because of their brand of >socialism too. You're free to form a co-op with the dumb donkey, >bit leave me out of it. More importantly, leave me free to be out >of it. > Then leave the country. I hear Somalia doesn't have a central gov't to speak of. I'm sure you'll be happy there where it's every man for himself. If you don't want the responsibilities of living in a society, DON'T!
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 18:12
Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <3fcbb$45647f3d$4fe77c5$17560(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn >>>"plan ahead"! >>AT&T's former monopoly was licensed and regulated. They >>eventally voluntarily gave it up in order to be permitted >>to invest their profits in something unrelated to >>their primary business. > Just in case you haven't been paying attention, it was a gov't lawsuit that > broke them up. To be accurate, the government brought suit because of certain aspects of the business, namely their insistance that only equipment provided by the Bell System could be connected to the phone lines. Breaking up the entire system wasn't in the works at that stage. AT&T came to realize that they could play the game to their advantage by divestiture. They wanted a piece of the computer business and thought they could do well at it. So the breakup wasn't the result of the lawsuit, but an outgrowth of it. In the end their corporate culture was unable to adapt to open markets because they had always had protections. Now consider the "corporate culture" aspects of creating an NHS in the USA. |