Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 02:53 Don Bowey wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > krw wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Since when has the USA had socialism ? > > > > Graham > > There have been "pockets of socialism in the US, including one (productive > and profitable) in Alaska, which remained when the Territory of Alaska > became a state. It had no problem inter-working with US law. I'm sure it wouldn't. How did this example in Alaska come about ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 03:06 unsettled wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>lparker(a)emory.edu says... > >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>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? The NHS get sued over here sometimes when things go wrong as of course they occasionally do in any organisation. It's not difficult at all. And it doesn't involve suing the government either, another daft idea you just invented. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 03:13 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > 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. I don't know how those figures were collated but the numbers I've seen over the years put overall taxation for the US historically at ~ 30% , the UK 40% and mainland Europe ~ 50%. It's possible that the accession of new member states to the EU may have pushed down the European average but that would depend entirely how those figures were collated. 51% would be slightly on the high side for Europe but within the normal range AIUI. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 03:21 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>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. > > Ahh, the good-old-days argument. Well, you might be interested to know > that, in those halcyon days, doctors didn't make more than 10X the national > average income. Things have changed since then, and in ways that we cannot > go back. But the, you've got yours, so why should you care if anyone else > gets proper care? Under an 'NHS', doctors might have to scale back their financial expectations slightly. A GP in England typically earns around �100,000 ( $180,000 ). Not bad going though. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 03:25
krw wrote: > dbowey(a)comcast.net says... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Since when has the USA had socialism ? > > > > > > Graham > > > > > > > There have been "pockets of socialism in the US, > > Hell, the Branch Dividians were socialist too. There are *many* > "pockets of socialism". There is also massive federal socialism. > I simply want to see NO MORE! Your fixation with the destruction of humane thinking is clear. Wear your horns with pride ! Graham |