Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 20:54 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. And you can call your state's insurance regulatory people to resolve issues with Aetna or Blue Cross. And you can sue Aetna or Blue Cross in the courts. Either is much more effective than calling the government to force it to do something it doesn't feel is in its own best interest. Tell us, have you ever actually complained to one department of government about another? Have you ever tried to sue the government? snip
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:04 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:ek7das$r6e$27(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <ek71e9$8qk_001(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>One tin foil and I quit. I am not afflicted with this kind of >>thinking. Uh...yes you are, but you don't even know it. >> Instead, you might try to make the assumption that >>I may know something, and am able to think fairly well. You're asking an awful lot. If you want people to think you know something, then stop making up facts to support your position. If you want people to think you are able to think fairly well, then stop making up paranoid conspiracy theories to justify your preconceived notions. People *have* given you the benefit of the doubt, and you have repeatedly proven that it wasn't justified. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:13 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456703FB.E60F0CD3(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> I'm told >> >> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study >> >> that. >> > >> >It's called social democracy. >> >> I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives >> me a slight warning. >> >> > All of the European 'lbour' parties embrace the >> >concept more or less. >> >> Yes and that's a serious problem when independent thinking >> and action is required. > > I beg your pardon. Do please explain what you mean. > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy >> > >> >" The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered >> considerably >> >in the 1990s and 2000s [1]. Sweden has produced a strong economy from >> >sole >> >proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Ikea, and >> Ericsson), >> >while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies in the world, low >> >unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of >> >living, >> >all while registering sizable economic growth. " >> >> What bothers me about this is that there is only a few companies. > > Only a few companies. Whatever are you talking about ? You've gone right > off the > rails again. > > >> There are many ways to measure cost of living. If they included >> all the taxes it would be very high. > > Eh ? You mean income tax presumably ? Sweden's taxation isn't > significantly higher > than theEuropean norm AIUI. Actually, it is. Sweden's total tax burden is about 51 % of the GDP (which, for purposes of this discussion, the GDP is close enough to total personal income). The US is about 32 %, the UK is about 36 % (!) and the EU25 average is about 40 %. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003705.shtml For direct comparison of the US and Europe, I couldn't find the US figures as a % of GDP instead of personal income, but the numbers should be pretty close. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek70h3$8qk_012(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > Most people, (except it seems our current Demcocrat leadership), > in this country are highly allergic to throwing away our > Constitution. That's hilarious. The Bush administration has been throwing out wholesale clauses of the Constitution at their whim. Or was your substituting "Democrat" for "neo-conservative Republican" another Freudian slip? > To transfer states' powers to the Federal > government is unconstitutional Please quote the clause that forbids this in general. And please quote the clause that says that providing health care is a "states' power". > and requires extraordinary > circumstances And you think that having 20 % of our population without health care is not "extraordinary"? > and legal actions to do so. And what makes you think the needed legal actions cannot happen? ERic Lucas
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 22:25
In article <ek7mr9$9d2$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <MPG.1fd11128aed44820989c5b(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <ek79lm$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. I do believe Exxon-Mobil was done under Clinton. Your point is? > > 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, ... Good idea! It's called *living*. ...better than living under the thumb of tree-huggers like you! -- Keith |