|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ============ the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada and Britain are commonplace. =============== I think the misunderstandings are due to differences in how medical priorities are established. In Canada, "your turn" is decided by a physician. If more emergent cases arise, your less-critical procedure is "delayed". That is, you have no "absolute" time for your procedure, because the system cannot anticipate more important cases coming up. As I'm given to understand from conversations with Americans, your "place in line" is a function of both emergent need and ability to pay. Philosophically, the Canadin people do not accept that money should be a factor in these decisions. For us, the only criteria in making these decisions ought to be medical -- that is, whatever medical professionals think the priorities ought to be. Overly simplistic, but a reasonable picture, I think. It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and not infrequently die while waiting for the list to move along because the system is bogged down with "emergencies," both legitimate and non-emergent cases that are given a false high priority through political influence or other forms of corruption. One of the problems with socialized medicine is that because it is centrally organized, you can't bypass the wait list for your assigned doctor/hospital by going somewhere else where there are fewer people on the list, because this is seen as "jumping the queue." In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one that isn't so busy, anywhere in the US...or indeed in the world. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God. Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after a review of the "Galileo Affair". That's not necessarily true. Science probably can either prove or disprove the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to the point that we can identify the concept. Of course, one of the root difficulties is defining "God" and what that means. Does it mean a white guy in a robe with a long beard, or does it mean some intelligence so superior to our own that it appears to be omnipotent and/or omnicient? Or does it mean something else. There is a large body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe, combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of intelligent design of the Universe. It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. Are you sure? It certainly does not prove the existence of God. Nor does it disprove it. Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract concept than proof. A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely wrong. That would be tautology. Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to suspect some factor other than random chance is involved. Recognizing that improbability is a significant issue when examining events is sound scientific thinking. Bowing to the diety of "Random Chance" combined with the companion hypothesis of "Infinite Variation" is no more scientific than a simple belief in God. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything. True, but not really relevant, since it was the scientific asses the numbers were pulled from. The "fundies" are merely suggesting, Occam's Razor-wise, that when an event is highly statistically improbable, it's perhaps more reasonable to conclude that there is some meddling with random chance going on that skews the system towards the occurrence of the statistically highly improbable event. You might call it a risk of "observer bias." Schroedinger's cat might be more than a cloud of probabilities if God's unseen thumb is on the scale. There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Not really. The only real impediments to a hydrogen economy are infrastructure and investment...and consumer acceptance of the inconveniences associated with using a less energy dense fuel than oil. But the concept is hardy smoke and mirrors, and indeed technology is moving on apace to make it a realistic, economic reality...which is a good thing. Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever happened to academic freedom of inqiry? There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks Elvis is still alive. Really? Do you have any evidence of this, or are you making assumptions again? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Um, the primary reason for stockpiles is to provide food in the event of crop failures and shortages BUt if you check the history of US agriculture, the primary reason was _not_ to provide food - it was to prop up prices. Stop playing with words and check the facts. It's both. And neither is an improper exercise of government power. Living up there, you don't have access to stockpiles of government cheese, for example, that are distributed to feed the poor. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to do with terrorism. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they can move about freely and without scrutiny. One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny, You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border is _not_ open. It's more open that it ought to be. and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US Which only proves that the US can't control its borders. Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however, is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do. You won't like it if we do. Don't blame anyone for your problems. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to close the border, which will wreck your economy. The 9/11 terrorists arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada. And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent. Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Nah, we'll just drill more wells here. Canada will suffer far more than the US from a border closing. If you could increase domestic oil production in the US by 10% of your total consumption, it would already have been done. That would be in excess of 25% of current US production. That is an enormous amount of oil and the value to the domestic oil industry would be tremendous. Yup, but you fail to recognize that the regulatory climate in the US constrains domestic production. Just look at ANWR. We've been wrangling over that for years...all because drillers want to impact about 2000 acres of the several MILLION acres in the ANWR. There is also no way you could replace the electricity you import without a lot of time and enormous expenditures. Given the stimulus to provide our own electricity, we can do so. The question is not what it costs us, but what it costs Canadians. Nothing we can't do without. Raw materials and manufactured parts for US industry? For a start, closing the border would shut down GM, Ford and D/C's car plants. When the border was backed up after 9/11, Michigan Congressmen were the first to complain. Temporary impediments only. I know you'd like to think Canada is essential to the success of the US, but it's not. The problem is that you are completely ignorant of the interconnectedness of the US with the rest of the world in general and Canada in particular. Not at all. In fact, my arguments depend on it. But I posit that other countries need us far more than we need them. If the US could survive on its own, it would. It can't - it has become much too dependent on imports. You'd be amazed what we can do without at need. The US has been spearheading free trade pacts for decades. Sadly true, because we've begun to see how some of those pacts are not helpful to our economy, but are harmful to it. So, it's time to amend the pacts so that our economy suffers no harm. Get your head out of your ass and look at the real world. Hey, you need us more than we need you, so the rest of the world can kiss my ass, you and Canada included. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: That would roughly double the state GDP while dropping less than 2% of GDP in agricultural production. I don't know where you get the idea that a 50% reduction in agriculture in California would result in less than a 50% reduction in agricultural production in California. Your head's been in your ass too long - you can no longer read. A 50% reduction in agriculture in California will result in a 2% reduction in California's GDP. You do know what GDP means, don't you? Of course. I was merely twitting you for your lack of clarity of writing. The pertinent question is, however, what a 50% reduction in agriculture in California means to the nation as a whole, and to our needs for foodstuffs. And then there's the issue of what happens to the ag lands once the production is stopped. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Actually, much stronger states rights than in the EU. You really don't have a clue, do you? Individual states in the US have virtually _no_ power compared to the EU countries. They have less power than Canadian provinces. The US is a union of weak states. Canada is a confederation of relatively strong provinces. Europe is a loose union of independent countries. Completely opposite to what you claim. The advocates of strong state rights in the US _lost_ the civil war. Just check your history books. It would also do you some good to learn about political systems in the world, since you don't have any idea what you're talking about. You have it exactly backwards. All powers not *specifically* reserved to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people. It's no different than the EU. The EU got the idea from us, in fact. Jingoistic day-dreaming. Try some reality someday. It is reality. Two thousand years of European nationalism and conflict prove my thesis. Well, are you claiming bad press then? Whenever someone here talks about socialized medicine, the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada and Britain are commonplace. Maybe you're just lucky. I don't know where you get what you think are facts, but they don't jive with reality. Luck is not involved. Sure it is. Too many sick people, too few underpaid doctors. The math is inevitable. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
Lynn Tegrity wrote: If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be powerful and so influential in the world. If the U.S. was more like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have had so many wars involving the U.S. and so many dirty wars started because of the U.S. influence. Right. You would have had one war, and you would now be speaking German and Seig Heiling Der Furher. Or, alternatively, you would have had two wars, and you would now be speaking Russian...if you were still alive and not buried in a mass grave somewhere in the Urals. Thumbing your nose at the US and its military power and policies is easy for you, and you have US military power and policies to thank for your ability to thumb your nose at all, ingrate. If all the other countries in the world was more like the US then we would not be the most powerful and influential country in the world because they would be the US's equal. There used to be the Soviets, who had the military advantage up untill the late seventies, Which the US single-handedly defeated thanks to Ronald Regan. and right now China and the EU are catching up with the U.S. economically with big steps. And we're making sure that they are directly tied to our interests by making them dependent on the teat of US consumerism. If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars. We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war. But, if France and Germany (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't want to help in Iraq, that's fine, we'll do it alone...and then we'll enjoy the fruits of victory alone too. Not a drop of Iraqi oil or dollar in reconstruction contracts for the EU...excepting perhaps Britain. Everybody else can pound sand. The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best for our country, not what is best for other countries. The citizens of most countries vote for what is good for them, however, there is not necessarily a discrepancy between voting what is good for you and what can also be good for most other people. The joke is that the citizens of the U.S. have a tendncy to vote for what seems to be good for them right now, conveniently forgetting the long term detrimental effects, On whom? or pushing their long term negative effects down the throats of future generations. Well, that's the thing about future generations, they don't have any rights, so their interests are subordinate to the present needs of the people who are actually alive. Very egoistical thinking that will burden your children, grandchildren and maybe even more with the irresponsible financial and environmental behaviour of the current generation. That's what you get when you come late to the table. Talking about behaving anti-socially... Well, anti-socialistically anyway. The world should not dictate to the US what type of government we have. The world won't, the rest of the world will just start to recognise it for the selfish double standard lying warmongers that the U.S. administration really is. Fine by me. They should particularly remember the "warmongers" part, and they should fear us and do what they can to avoid raising our ire. The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our strong economy. What strong economy? It's a watered down version of what could be done to do the very least to limit the wholesale destruction and pollution of our environment. This is such claptrap. There is no "wholesale destruction and pollution" of the US environment. The water and air are cleaner than they've been in a hundred years, there are more trees now than existed prior to the arrival of Eurpoeans on the continent, animals and habitat are better protected here than nearly anywhere else on the planet. The list goes on and on. Your claim is nonsense. Since the average U.S. citizen uses up five times as much energy per person as the rest of the western world Which we use to produce ten times more productive economic output of the rest of the world. and causes a similarly staggering amount of pollution that isn't just limited to the U.S., Hogwash and balderdash. who are you to tell others that you can keep going on this egoistical course without doing anything to limit the impact for everyone else? We're the most powerful, influential nation on the planet, that's who we are. We like it that way. After the rest of the world limits their CO2 emissions to zero, then we'll see if the Kyoto Protocols have any real impact on the false specter of "global warming." If the link is actually proven, and it's shown that worldwide CO2 reductions have a beneficial impact on the environment, then you can come to us and demand that we do the same. Until then, the Kyoto Protocols are more about disadvantaging the US economy as "retribution" for our success by sour-grapes nations who would do anything to damage our economy, even if they don't have to do anything to reduce their own impacts. Kyoto was just like the UN...a bunch of malcontent petite lords trying to drag down the King just because he's the King. Sorry, not going to play that game. Get your **** together, prove that it's necessary by achieving real benefits first, then you can come to us and ask us to participate. Do you also drive your car through your neighbour's lawn, That would be trespassing....just like all the illegals are doing to us. throwing your spent BBQ ashes over his fence Hey, we asked and he said we could do it if we paid him five bucks, so we did. after sending the smoke over into his garden Sucks to be downwind, doesn't it? where the clean launndry was drying Put your laundry in a clothes dryer instead. and their children were playing, ignoring their outcry, Smack the whiney kids and tell them to enjoy the fragrance of barbecuing meat while recognizing that the neighbors have every right to barbecue. because you simply don't care what they think or say? Ah, quit your bitching. One day you will need that neighbour, who has been stupid enough to keep the company that you work at afloat with his investment money for so long and they will not help you because you didn't treat them with respect for so long. Or not. The U.S. debt is skyrocketing, the trade balance is losing roughly a billion and a half dollars a day and the only way that you will keep afloat is with the help of those insane enough to think that by investing even more money into that bottomless pit that your economy has become, it will return their previous investments. Which it will. It always has. Every time some doom-and-gloom naysayer has predicted the economic collapse of the US, we've proven them wrong. We'll do so again. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. economy crash will happen within my lifetime. It won't. But even if it does, we'll recover and once again take our rightful place as the preeminent power in the world. That's just the kind of people we are. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:43:47 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote: Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is "the truth." If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey, according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far beyond what they are today. They haven't. Interesting conundrum, isn't it? Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on "intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee, etc. Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've been peer-reviewed. It was just a suggestion, Scott, you needn't take it so hard. Relax. Don't drink so much coffee. The point is that it is easier to claim that "We're #1" when it is we who decide on the criteria for being #1. Who's to say that the most highly evolved creature is not some bacteria numbering in the trillions and trillions and able to adapt to survival almost anywhere. Man, with all his intelligence, hasn't even managed to number 10 billion, let alone a single trillion. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Illiterate? Write for FREE help Indeed. But that still doesn't prove evolution. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Rick wrote:
Michael Daly wrote: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a single definition of a single law of science. Could you please post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that is widely accepted by the scientific community. That original statement is completely false. Darwin stated that organisms evolve to fit the environment in which they live, or they face extinction. The oceans, for example, are an extremely stable environment. Sharks will evolve, or go extinct, when the oceans change in some appreciable way that threatens shark survival. Those offspring that survive will produce offspring that are more likely to survive in those new conditions. Most who do not understand evolution make those broad statements which prove their lack of knowledge. So, why then do humans, or indeed land-dwelling vertebrates exist? If the ocean is such a stable environment, why did *any* species leave it to (theoretically) evolve into land-dwelling creatures? How can you explain the 400 million year non-evolution of sharks while simultaneously subscribing to the view that all live evolved from the ocean? It's dichotomous and illogical. Or at least unexplained. What forced other species from the oceans that did not also force sharks from it? Or, is it perhaps that sharks are "intended" to be ocean predators and some "intelligent design" is at work causing huge and sudden jumps in evolution that drive species from one comfortable niche to the uncomfortable niche of "adapt or die?" If the ocean is a stable place for sharks, Occam's Razor tells us that it must have been stable for other ocean-dwelling species as well. What then is the impetus for some species to leave it? Your assertion suggests a steady-state system were nothing evolves unless there is some biological or environmental pressure that forces evolution. But you cannot support this theory without accounting for sharks and why they are immune from the pressures that drove other species to evolve. On the other hand, if "evolution" is in reality a series of distinct, sudden changes in form and function, triggered by some as-yet-unknown mechanism, rather than a gradual adaptation to environmental pressures, we come to the question of why those sudden shifts occur. Is it random chance caused by gamma-ray damage to DNA, or could there be some greater intelligence at work, one that we cannot detect or quantify? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 17-Feb-2005, Lynn Tegrity wrote: The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our strong economy. The Kyoto Accord is an example of people trying to get other people to take some responsibility for their actions. Actually, it's about people trying to point fingers and inspect motes while ignoring planks. After they've cleaned up their own mess, then we'll consider their requests. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Weisr says:
=============== In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one that isn't so busy, anywhere in the US ================ Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees to the malady. Weiser says: ================= It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and not infrequently die while waiting for the list =========================== You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line. People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But, would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line. Seems logical and fair to me. Weiser says: =================== given a false high priority through political influence or other forms of corruption. ======================= Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public outrage is palpable. Suffice to say: it happens rarely enough to not be significant to this discussion. frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
====================== too few underpaid doctors. ======================== Doctors to the left of me, doctors to the right... and not one of them underpaid. Do you have any idea at all about how doctors are paid in Canada? Do you know how their compensation is determined? frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
================= Too many sick people, too few underpaid doctors. The math is inevitable. =================== I'm going try to get a handle on the way doctors are remunerated in the USA. If I paint with too broad a brush and make significant errors, I'll be happy to corrected by you, Scott. Is it fair to say that a significant number of Americans carry private medical insurance? I'm going to assume they do. In these private medical insurance cases, I'll further assume that the doctor gets paid by submitting a bill to the insurance company. Now, if these insurance companies are anything at all like other insurance companies, they're not particularly fond of handing over money. I'm going to assume that they scrutinize all the bills that get submitted. Further, if they act as good agents for their shareholders, they'll deny any costs that appear out of the ordinary. To keep life simple, they very likely have a fee schedule: $X for setting a broken collar bone, $Y for removing tonsils, etc etc. And exactly how is this different than Canada? You suggest that in Canada, there are "too few underpaid doctors". You're trying to make some sort of economic case, I guess. Hmmmm, thus we'd have to assume "too MANY underpaid doctors" in the USA. Clearly, in the USA, the free market ought to find an equilibrium as more people go into a very lucrative profession. But this is apparently not the case. There appears to be a doctor shortage in the USA as well. Well!!!! Isn't that peculiar! Of course it's not if one understands power. Bargaining power! It's the oldest trick in the trade union guidebook: keep supply artificially low. Hey, if it works for longshoremen, why not doctors? frtzw906 |
I always loved coming into the states - especially through Miami Florida
just after Bush stole his first presidency. You, a non American, are asked to fill in several forms with boxes to fill. I always feel like asking if they want a tick cross or Chad and who is going to count these and anyway they are a good reflection of the intelligence of the CIA terrorism controls and other forms of attempted control. Among the questions you are asked are 1 Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? 2 Are you addicted to Narcotics 3 Were you a member of the Nazi party between xxxx and xxxx. The rest are just as inane. Apparently the reason for asking you these questions is so that they can do you for lying if you are caught! It is no wonder the phrase dumb America has arisen! Surely the answer to all this is to look at the cause of the terrorism and attempt to answer the questions raised. Palestine has for too long been ignored and it was not till many years of terrorism that the rest of the world started looking at the plight of the refugees in Gaza and the other OCCUPIED by Israel territories. Al Quaeda has its own agenda and maybe looking at the reason why they have picked on the west in general and the USA in particular would help solve the threat for better than trying to impose Western ideals on reluctant people. I would argue that this has created more terrorism than it has prevented. In message , Scott Weiser writes A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to do with terrorism. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they can move about freely and without scrutiny. One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny, You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border is _not_ open. It's more open that it ought to be. and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US Which only proves that the US can't control its borders. Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however, is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do. You won't like it if we do. Don't blame anyone for your problems. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to close the border, which will wreck your economy. The 9/11 terrorists arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada. And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent. Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well. -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weisr says: =============== In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one that isn't so busy, anywhere in the US ================ Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees to the malady. Weiser says: ================= It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and not infrequently die while waiting for the list =========================== You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line. People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But, would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line. Seems logical and fair to me. They die not because they are critical, they die because they *become* critical, and unsalvagable, because they cannot obtain treatment for illnesses that would prevent further declines in health, leading to debilitation and/or death, because "critical" cases come first. One anecdote I read was the heart patient awaiting surgery in England who wrote to the Queen to beg for help because she was two years down the surgery list. The Queen commiserated with her and suggested that if she actually had a heart attack, she would move up on the list. Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with their conditions continually deteriorating until, while not critical enough to jump the queue, they eventually succumb to irreversible medical problems that might have been prevented, or significantly slowed if they had received prophylactic treatment early on. But in socialized medicine, such prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often doesn't happen. Basically, the system waits till you've become critically ill to treat you, and then you have a much higher risk of dying because the disease's course is irreversible. Weiser says: =================== given a false high priority through political influence or other forms of corruption. ======================= Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public outrage is palpable. As it should be. Then again, it's a matter of being hoist on your own petard. You folks created the socialized medicine system and you accepted it because you think you shouldn't have to pay for your own medical care...that someone else (everyone else) should be responsible for your illnesses, so you suffer the consequences, which is fine by me. My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility. Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of taxpayers. Does that mean that poor people may die because they cannot afford emergency treatment? Sometimes, but not often, because our federal government subsidizes (there's that nasty word again) hospitals to provide emergency medical care to the indigent and poor. It's pretty much true that in the US, if you urgently need life-saving medical care, you can get it, regardless of your ability to pay. Routine care, elective care, and non-critical care is another thing. You may suffer more from bronchitis than a rich person because you cannot afford the antibiotics, and you may suffer the ill effects of type II diabetes because you don't need emergency insulin, but that's your problem, not the taxpayer's. On the other hand, you can also go to the myriad of charitable hospitals (most of which were founded by and are still supported and operated by the Catholic Church) and receive some of the best medical care on the planet...absolutely free, and at no cost to taxpayers. Suffice to say: it happens rarely enough to not be significant to this discussion. Unless you happen to be one of the ones who dies... -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Weiser says:
========================== Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with their conditions continually deteriorating ================= Could it be that you're describing people in the USA who cannot afford medical coverage? Hell, as you describe Canada, at least we've acknowledged their illness and pain. I'm guessing these people aren't even statistics in the USA because they can't afford to see a doctor to figure out what's bothering them in the first place. Weiser says: =============== But in socialized medicine, such prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often doesn't happen. ============= Precisely the opposite is the case. Because EVERYONE is entitled to treatment, everyone goes to see the doctors before conditions worsen. Thus, prophylactic care is administered to all who need it -- very EARLY in the process. Weiser says: ============= My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility. Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of taxpayers. ============== And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely (along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't compete in economic (or military) battles. Clear philosophical differences. frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ============= My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility. Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of taxpayers. ============== And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely (along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't compete in economic (or military) battles. Considering the widespread use of prescription drugs with amounts that are staggering by most western nation's standards, the high percentage of overweight and obese people, it seems that the population is a lot less healthy than that of most other western nations, despite the enormous amounts spent on health care in the U.S.. Since health care spending in the U.S. towers over that of other western countries with a much older population, and the health of the average U.S. citizen isn't equal to or better than those in other western nations, it seems obvious that the system doesn't work all that well. Increased health care spending obviously doesn't equate improved public health. Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, but half of them would probably die of heart attacks if they had to run 100 yards to cover. Nah, I don't see that citizen uprising with privately owned weapons happen... ever! :-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars. We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war. And exactly where *are* the now infamous WMDs that that misinformed shrub warned U.S. omniously about, and used as a justification for ATTACKING another soverign nation? I've said all along, Dubya attacked Iraq for exactly two reasons: 1. OIL (Obviously) 2. Because Dubya's daddy didn't do it right the first time! John_Kuthe... (Glub, please forgive me for 1. perpetuating this inane thread and 2. arguing with Scott Weiser! ;-) ) |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ====================== too few underpaid doctors. ======================== Doctors to the left of me, doctors to the right... and not one of them underpaid. Compared to US doctors? Please. That's one thing that socialized medicine absolutely cannot match. Do you have any idea at all about how doctors are paid in Canada? Do you know how their compensation is determined? By the free market. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================= Too many sick people, too few underpaid doctors. The math is inevitable. =================== I'm going try to get a handle on the way doctors are remunerated in the USA. If I paint with too broad a brush and make significant errors, I'll be happy to corrected by you, Scott. Is it fair to say that a significant number of Americans carry private medical insurance? I'm going to assume they do. Yup. But then again many don't. In these private medical insurance cases, I'll further assume that the doctor gets paid by submitting a bill to the insurance company. True, but when the amount paid by insurance does not cover the costs, the patient is responsible for the balance Now, if these insurance companies are anything at all like other insurance companies, they're not particularly fond of handing over money. I'm going to assume that they scrutinize all the bills that get submitted. Further, if they act as good agents for their shareholders, they'll deny any costs that appear out of the ordinary. To keep life simple, they very likely have a fee schedule: $X for setting a broken collar bone, $Y for removing tonsils, etc etc. True, in many cases. However, doctors can always negotiate their fees here. Moreover, they can charge what they like, and the difference is paid by the patient. And exactly how is this different than Canada? The free market sets the prices for both insurance compensation and doctor's services. You can buy a comprehensive HMO policy that covers everything from soup to nuts, but you're restricted to using the medical facilities of that HMO. In those facilities, the care you receive is mandated by your contract. The more you pay for insurance, the better your coverage. Plus, you can always go outside the HMO system if you need care that's not covered by your insurance plan. Under socialized medicine, it's like one giant HMO for the entire country, the only upside is that you don't have to pay a premium every month. Your care is doled out to you in accordance with government mandates, not in accordance with a contract between you and your medical provider. Thus, you as an individual have no control whatsoever over the care you receive under a socialized medicine system. You take what they give you, and if you don't like it, tough. You suggest that in Canada, there are "too few underpaid doctors". That¹s the nature of government-run health programs, including, down here, the Veteran's Administration medical program for our vets. Too few doctors willing to work for low government wages in a cash-strapped program that often cannot provide simple things like routine daily wound care and personal hygiene. The VA is a perfect example of the pitfalls of government-run health care programs. You see, when government runs health care, the taxpayers are reluctant to fund it because individual taxpayers want their own health looked after, but they don't want to be taxed to pay for somebody else's health care, so they persuade their representatives to cut funding for socialized health care because they don't believe they will ever need it. For socialized medicine (or socialized anything else) one element of human behavior is required that simply does not exist in the large-scale societal dynamic: Altruism. It's the same reason Libertarianism is a social failure. Both systems make the erroneous presumption that more than a token number of people are truly altruistic and are thus willing to give their money for the benefit of someone they don't know *when required to do so by government.* On the other hand, history shows us that people are indeed altruistic and giving to those less fortunate in this country, but they refuse to do it through the government, they prefer to donate directly to charitable organizations. The reason is two-fold: Most importantly, people don't like being *required* to pay for someone else's bad health through the forcible extraction and redistribution of income by the tax man. Second, people have a healthy distrust of government-run operations, which are synonymous with waste, fraud and inefficiency. They prefer to donate voluntarily to organizations, which gives them some degree of control over the operation of the charity. If the charity wastes money and doesn't provide valuable services that comport with the wishes of the donors, the donors stop donating. When government can redistribute your income by force and allocate it to inefficient, wasteful, poorly-run government health programs (Like the BIA health system), people have no control over how the money is spent or whether it is being properly used to provide care...or if it's just being siphoned off into some bureaucrats pocket. You're trying to make some sort of economic case, I guess. Hmmmm, thus we'd have to assume "too MANY underpaid doctors" in the USA. Clearly, in the USA, the free market ought to find an equilibrium as more people go into a very lucrative profession. But this is apparently not the case. There appears to be a doctor shortage in the USA as well. Only in rural areas where there is not as much demand. There are plenty of doctors in heavily populated areas. Well!!!! Isn't that peculiar! Not really, if you understand the dynamic. Of course it's not if one understands power. Bargaining power! It's the oldest trick in the trade union guidebook: keep supply artificially low. Hey, if it works for longshoremen, why not doctors? Which is fine so long as the government isn't artificially limiting wages, as it does in socialized medicine. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ========================== Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with their conditions continually deteriorating ================= Could it be that you're describing people in the USA who cannot afford medical coverage? Exactly. Hell, as you describe Canada, at least we've acknowledged their illness and pain. And then string them along with false hope, only to abandon them in the end because they've become hopeless cases. In the US, you are responsible for yourself, and you can't lay the blame off on anyone else, like the government. That's personal responsibility and that's the way things ought to be. The rule is: "Sometimes you die." I'm guessing these people aren't even statistics in the USA because they can't afford to see a doctor to figure out what's bothering them in the first place. Perhaps, but if they want help, they can get it. Weiser says: =============== But in socialized medicine, such prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often doesn't happen. ============= Precisely the opposite is the case. Because EVERYONE is entitled to treatment, everyone goes to see the doctors before conditions worsen. Not if their condition is not sufficiently grave at first exam to move them up on the list. Thus, prophylactic care is administered to all who need it -- very EARLY in the process. Doubtful. Weiser says: ============= My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility. Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of taxpayers. ============== And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely (along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't compete in economic (or military) battles. And yet we have the best medical care system on the planet and thus the greatest likelyhood that a sick person will be made well. Valuing people as a resource does not infer that the government is required to nanny them 24/7. The cool thing about humans is that we keep making more of us. Clear philosophical differences. Not really. The US does not devalue its citizens because it does not choose to provide government-run health care. It tries to find ways to make the economy provide health care even to the indigent within the capitalist system because as a nation we generally recognize that government run programs are tremendously inefficient and generally poorly run, no matter what nation they occur in. The vast majority of workers (not non-producing indigents) in this country enjoy the finest health care in the world and are thus quite healthy as compared to many citizens in socialized medicine systems. That they have to pay for their health care only serves to stimulate them to remain healthy and take care of themselves. Those in socialized medical care systems have no impetus to take care of themselves because they don't have to pay to get care. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. but half of them would probably die of heart attacks if they had to run 100 yards to cover. Maybe. But then again, if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're willing to die in the process) we win, because the other feature of our government is that we deliberately limit our standing army to levels that cannot threaten the liberty of the people. And even the issue of the National Guard and state guard forces has been carefully thought out by the Framers. They said, and rightfully so, that a local militia force, under locally-elected officers, would be unlikely to agree to march to another state to impose martial rule. That's why National Guard commanders are not appointed by the federal government, but are selected by the Guard units themselves, ratified by the Governor. In the unlikely event that a demogog attempts a coup in the US, it is almost impossible to get the bulk of citizen-soldiers in the various guard units to go along with orders from Washington to violate the Constitution and oppress the local citizenry...because the guard troops ARE the local citizenry and they will simply refuse such orders. Indeed, they are far more likely to refuse such illegal orders from Washington and then organize with other state guard units to attack local federal troop concentrations and invade Washington to put down the tyrant. Even supposing federal soldiers seized all National Guard arms prior to declaring martial law nationwide, our federal army is not large enough to control the population...deliberately so...and the National Guard can be re-armed with weapons *from civilians* that would make them an effective fighting force against usurping federal troops. This is particularly true because a would-be tyrant cannot afford to simply carpet-bomb the very cities and populations he's trying to take control of, so the war becomes a guerilla war waged by grunts in the field, not high-tech standoff munitions. Nah, I don't see that citizen uprising with privately owned weapons happen... ever! :-) That's what makes you a slave...the slave mentality. That was proven by your nation's collaboration with the Nazis in WWII. Unless you're willing to die to protect your freedoms, you don't deserve your freedoms. On the other hand, at need, I have sufficient arms to arm at least three soldiers with effective military battle rifles, along with a basic ammunition load for each, while still having plenty of precision, long-range weapons for my own use. I guarantee you that even if I can't dash a hundred yards in 10 seconds, I can hit a human-sized target at ranges out to one thousand yards with at least an 80% probability. Soon, I'll be extending that effective range to closer to 1500 yards for humans and 2000 yards for materials, with a somewhat smaller hit probability but a much wider target destruction capability that includes unarmored and lightly-armored vehicles and other equipment. Should I be called upon to defend the Constitution and the nation, I guarantee to take out at least one enemy soldier before they even know I'm there, and probably several more before they can take me, if in fact they can. There are a lot of people just like me out there...enough to ensure that any invasion or attempt to overthrow our government is doomed to failure, even without the cooperation of the National Guard. You are free to disbelieve me if you like, but I'd recommend that you avoid serving in the UN forces should it decide to try to take over America, if you wish to survive. Remember the advice of military experts about underestimating your enemy. I would like to fill you in on an interesting bit of unknown military history. Back in the mid-70s, commanders of the Special Forces decided to do some training in the northern part of Florida, near Jacksonville. They decided to stage a training mission that called for a large group of special forces personnel to "invade" the area around the Okeefenokee Swamp. They invited local residents to participate as OPFORs (Opposing Forces) to oppose the beach landing and infiltration. The locals were supplied with M-16's and MILES gear, but otherwise they provided all their own equipment and transportation. All they were told was that a landing would be taking place somewhere within a specified area of beach. To make a long story short, the locals wiped out the SF troopies. Kicked their asses right back into the ocean, to the massive embarrassment of the brass. It made the papers all over Florida, and I heard about it in college in Daytona Beach. Since then, no military training exercise has ever used local civilians as OPFORS. So, discount the abilities of US citizens to defend their country at your peril. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars. We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war. And exactly where *are* the now infamous WMDs that that misinformed shrub warned U.S. omniously about, and used as a justification for ATTACKING another soverign nation? Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties, and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them. I imagine we'll find them eventually. Besides, WMDs were not the only, nor even the most persuasive reason for invading Iraq. If you don't know the other compelling reasons that fully justified the invasion, it's because you're being willfully ignorant. I've said all along, Dubya attacked Iraq for exactly two reasons: 1. OIL (Obviously) Funny how with all that oil, we're not importing much, if any of it. 2. Because Dubya's daddy didn't do it right the first time! Well, that is absolutely true. Any blame that attaches for casualties suffered this time can be laid directly at Bush Sr.s door. He should have wiped Saddam out when he had the chance. It's a pity we had to go back, but the Asshole of Baghdad had 12 years and innumerable opportunities to comply with the mandates of the cease fire. He didn't. The fact that he refused to abide by the cease fire agreement is, in and of itself, without any other support whatsoever, complete, full and absolute justification for invading Iraq to depose Saddam. WMD's were just another brick on the load. John_Kuthe... (Glub, please forgive me for 1. perpetuating this inane thread and 2. arguing with Scott Weiser! ;-) ) I'm like heroin, you just can't resist me... -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
|
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms, not because of the Constitution. They only have that right because of the constitution. Take that away and their "right" goes with it. Rights are accorded by those in power, whether by might or by vote. Mike |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
After they've cleaned up their own mess, then we'll consider their requests. Kyoto was driven by people who waste far less and produce far less CO2 than Americans. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Mike |
just after Bush stole his first presidency.
Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. "Dave Manby" wrote in message ... I always loved coming into the states - especially through Miami Florida just after Bush stole his first presidency. You, a non American, are asked to fill in several forms with boxes to fill. I always feel like asking if they want a tick cross or Chad and who is going to count these and anyway they are a good reflection of the intelligence of the CIA terrorism controls and other forms of attempted control. Among the questions you are asked are 1 Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? 2 Are you addicted to Narcotics 3 Were you a member of the Nazi party between xxxx and xxxx. The rest are just as inane. Apparently the reason for asking you these questions is so that they can do you for lying if you are caught! It is no wonder the phrase dumb America has arisen! Surely the answer to all this is to look at the cause of the terrorism and attempt to answer the questions raised. Palestine has for too long been ignored and it was not till many years of terrorism that the rest of the world started looking at the plight of the refugees in Gaza and the other OCCUPIED by Israel territories. Al Quaeda has its own agenda and maybe looking at the reason why they have picked on the west in general and the USA in particular would help solve the threat for better than trying to impose Western ideals on reluctant people. I would argue that this has created more terrorism than it has prevented. In message , Scott Weiser writes A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to do with terrorism. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they can move about freely and without scrutiny. One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny, You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border is _not_ open. It's more open that it ought to be. and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US Which only proves that the US can't control its borders. Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however, is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do. You won't like it if we do. Don't blame anyone for your problems. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to close the border, which will wreck your economy. The 9/11 terrorists arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada. And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent. Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well. -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Could you please post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Do you have an alternate theory? You still didn't answer the request. But then, you can't. Once again, it's because you don't know what you're talking about. Which simply dismisses intelligent design while touting evolution without explaining your version of evolution and without a rational analysis of my question as to why sharks are still sharks 400 million years down the evolutionary line. You haven't identified what _my_ version of evolution is - in fact you haven't identified what any version of evolution is and you haven't demonstrated that _your_ version of "evolution" even exists in the scientific community. You understand nothing about evolution of any kind. You don't understand sharks, either. First of all, the only thing that remains constant in shark evolution is gross morphological characteristics. In fact, over millions of years, many shark species have died out and have been replaced by new species. The fact is that DNA is changing all the time. We know that. However, we know that most DNA plays no apparent role in morphology, so a mutation is not always likely to result in a visible change. In fact, many mutations produce no change at all. If you move beyond gross morphology, sharks have changed a lot over time; Compare a great white to a whale shark. We know that DNA mutations occur in humans as well, and at a fairly quick rate. In spite of that, there have been no morphological changes in skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens. No favourable change means no lasting change. Changes do not necessarily result in morphological differences. There is a single species of iguana that swims - all others are dry land creatures. The swimmer evolved as a result of a change in habitat from a change in ocean levels. It lost its food supply and survived by learning how to swim and feed on the bottom of the ocean. Only an expert can visually tell the difference between the swimming and dry land species, since the morphology is much the same. In the Amazon, there are flowering plants that produce a toxin used by the Yanomami to hunt and fish (by putting the toxin on their spear and dart points). There are two species - one that produces a strong toxin and one that produces a weak one. There are _no_ morphological differences between the two. Evolution isn't just about morphology. As Rick has pointed out, Darwin did not observe constant change - he observed statis. He observed that when an environment changes, an organism _may_ change to match its new environment. This is due to DNA mutations or recombinations that produce a favourable result in the new environment. Once that match has established, there is not reason to change again and the organism retains its current characteristics. Mike |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Is it random chance caused by gamma-ray damage to DNA, or could there be some greater intelligence at work, one that we cannot detect or quantify? DNA changes all the time. Not all changes result in obvious changes to the organism. You don't know anything about evolution, nor biology, nor genetics. You'd better stick to what you do know, if that can be identified. Mike |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: One of the problems with socialized medicine is that because it is centrally organized, you can't bypass the wait list for your assigned doctor/hospital by going somewhere else where there are fewer people on the list, because this is seen as "jumping the queue." In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one that isn't so busy, anywhere in the US...or indeed in the world. Your ignorance knows no bounds. In Canada, we have "socialized" medicine. We also have the ability to go to any doctor we wish, and we can leave the country to get treatment if required - it happens all the time. In fact, those treated outside are still covered by medical insurance. There is no one that dictates who gets what treatment. There are no "assignments" of services. Your expertise is ignorance. Keep it up, we need a good laugh. BTW - could you kindly explain how a strictly for-profit medical system can magically cope with overcrowding? Do hospitals and doctors magically appear out of the ether to take on the extra load? Mike |
in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php "Dave Manby" wrote in message ... I always loved coming into the states - especially through Miami Florida just after Bush stole his first presidency. You, a non American, are asked to fill in several forms with boxes to fill. I always feel like asking if they want a tick cross or Chad and who is going to count these and anyway they are a good reflection of the intelligence of the CIA terrorism controls and other forms of attempted control. Among the questions you are asked are 1 Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? 2 Are you addicted to Narcotics 3 Were you a member of the Nazi party between xxxx and xxxx. The rest are just as inane. Apparently the reason for asking you these questions is so that they can do you for lying if you are caught! It is no wonder the phrase dumb America has arisen! Surely the answer to all this is to look at the cause of the terrorism and attempt to answer the questions raised. Palestine has for too long been ignored and it was not till many years of terrorism that the rest of the world started looking at the plight of the refugees in Gaza and the other OCCUPIED by Israel territories. Al Quaeda has its own agenda and maybe looking at the reason why they have picked on the west in general and the USA in particular would help solve the threat for better than trying to impose Western ideals on reluctant people. I would argue that this has created more terrorism than it has prevented. In message , Scott Weiser writes A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to do with terrorism. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they can move about freely and without scrutiny. One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny, You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border is _not_ open. It's more open that it ought to be. and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US Which only proves that the US can't control its borders. Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however, is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do. You won't like it if we do. Don't blame anyone for your problems. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to close the border, which will wreck your economy. The 9/11 terrorists arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada. And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent. Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well. -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Science probably can either prove or disprove the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to the point that we can identify the concept. Religions define their gods quite well. You're grasping at straws here. Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from science fiction. Nor does it disprove it. Thank you for restating what I keep on saying. Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract concept than proof. This is weiser at his absurd best. Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to suspect some factor other than random chance is involved. Just because it is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible. If it occurs, nothing changes. If you are overly focused on the probability, then you start searching for other excuses for your lack of understanding. If there is a legitimate reason for doubting, the Bayesian approach is valid. What the "intelligent design" advocates ignore is that there isn't a single roll of the dice. less energy dense fuel than oil The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel" is that is contains no energy that wasn't put there by someone. It isn't a fuel, merely a means of transporting energy. It doesn't address an energy problem, only a portability problem. There is still a requirement for a source(s) of energy and the "hydrogen economy" conveniently ignores the associated costs and problems. In the end, hydrogen is a way of reducing the overall efficiency of an energy system. That's not a solution. Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. No, they come looking like refugees, You're making this up as you go along. You still provide no proof. Don't blame anyone for your problems. I'm not blaming anyone, Then quit whining. You have a problem - fix it and get out of everyone else's face. Case in point: the terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. One example vs the twenty plus that came into the US directly from Saudi Arabia. The problem is still yours. Mike |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 12:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf LOL. You think if real people had died in waiting lines the media would not get the story? Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. ? http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. |
Weiser says:
=================== Which is fine so long as the government isn't artificially limiting wages, as it does in socialized medicine. =========================== The government, in theory, can artificially limit wages. In practice, doctors in Canada know how clout they have. They act as anyone with power acts (they've learned well from trade unons): they withhold services. And they continue to withhold services until the fee schedule looks like they want it to look. So, it is the marketplace insifar as there is a marketplace when one party holds monopoly power. The doctors play a significant role in determining how much they get paid. Doctors can go on "strike" and they have done so -- because they're doctors, they never call it anything nearly so crass as a "strike", but the net effect is the same. There's no need to hold any tag days for doctors up in Canada, Scott; they're doing just fine. Weiser says: ==================== Compared to US doctors? Please. ======================= That begs the question: could it be that American doctors are overpaid? Like doctors everywhere, by virtue of their licence and the influence they wield over medical school entrance number, they hold considerable power. In neither the USA nor Canada can the economy find a natural equilibrium. In both countries, entrance to medical schools is severely restricted. In large measure this is due to the influence of medical associations. Restriction of supply guarantees higher incomes. frtzw906 |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Yup, but you fail to recognize that the regulatory climate in the US Regulations have nothing to do with it. The US cannot increase its capacity by 25% overnight. You don't have the reserves. I used to work in the oil industry and specifically did research on US Arctic exploration for companies like Chevron, Exxon, etc. You fail to understand the degree to which America consumes compared to its ability to produce. But ignorance seems to be your specialty. Given the stimulus to provide our own electricity, we can do so. With what? More multi-billion nukes that don't work? How about gas turbines? - quick to install - no wait, they require natural gas, which imports from Canada you'd lose. How about dams on rivers - uhh, no more rivers to dam. I guess you'll have to stick to hamsters in wheels. Temporary impediments only. If US industry can so quickly recover from a loss in capacity, then that means your previous claims about the importance of corporate welfare are bogus. If corporations can build efficient capacity quickly, then there is no reason to support any company - just let it die and it will be replaced. it's time to amend the pacts so that our economy suffers no harm. Your economy is suffering because you are spending money you don't have, are importing more than you export and are wasting more than the vast majority of the world's population. Corporate America has been using whatever means it has to shift to cheap imports to boost shareholder value at the expense of long term US value. Nothing to do with trade agreements. Mike |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com