| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#411
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote: Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Take a look at the amount of teenage pregnancies, the amount of children dying at birth, the state of health of the entire population, and you'll find that despite the huge medical cost to society, it's not up to par with most western countries with older populations that spend a lot less on medicine. Just repeating the "we don't have waiting lists" mantra doesn't prevent people from dying out on the street, or from going bancrupt because they can't pay all the high medical bills they were given because they couldn't afford health care insurance. Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. Which is exactly what is usual in the U.S., where you have the haves and have nots. There is a limit to how low the lowest incomes are, so that people don't need to resort to crime (even wonder why you have a murder rate several times higher than that of most western nations?) to survive. It's not the law of the jungle that makes a nation "civilised"... Also, there is a limit to how much people need to pay out of their own pocket (usually through income related health insurance premiums) to get normal medical attention, and there is a limit to how much people (ab-)use the system, because they do take personal responsibility for their own health. The few rare examples that are continuously brought up here of people dying while waiting for medical treatment is only true for certain medical treatments, such as transplants. Since there is a huge demand on donor organs, that will continue to be the case for a long time to come, even in the U.S.. Personally I find it disgusting that someone who has willfully abused his body through for example excessive drinking, eating or smoking but who has a lot of money can use up several donor organs that would have helped another less wealthy person last a lot longer. The same can of course be said for the excessive abuse of energy, pollution and what more. Just being able to afford something doesn't make it right to squander it. -- 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/ |
|
#412
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
And we're making sure that they are directly tied to our interests by making them dependent on the teat of US consumerism. You do live in a fantasy world, don't you. The US is only 21% of China's market and 18% of the EU's. How does that directly tie them to US consumerism? We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war. That is not even close to true. The invasion of Iraq was illegal. The invasion of Honduras was illegal. In fact, it is impossible to invade any country legally, since the only legal way to engage in war is to defend your own territory on your own territory. Mike |
|
#413
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties, Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply post 1991. 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. Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself? The obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a spider hole than fight back. They didn't exist - he was just an asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the arabs he was trying to influence. The US played to this, just as they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every claim about nuclear weapons. It is in the interests of a war monger to make sure that there is always an enemy. I imagine we'll find them eventually. Not likely, since America's given up looking. But then, you've never let facts interfere with your opinions. Mike |
|
#414
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
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) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Mike |
|
#416
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article , rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: 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. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. ================== I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and bans. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. ==================== You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"? Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently he's the President of the United States of America. He ssems to know what an assault weapon is. ================== LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh. ? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d ebate-fact-check_x.htm Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that expired last month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been told the bill couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most Republicans opposed extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time it came up for a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6 Democrats opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that most of the opposition came from Bush's own party. http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44 Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. ==== So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault weapon is? I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. |
|
#417
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Daly wrote: On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: 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) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Reminds me of the Japanese: they did have trained soldiers, and their aim was to take out more than one Allied soldier for every one of their own who bit the dust. Although many people will be familiar with kamikaze, the average Japanese soldier also got suicide weapons, for example to sit in a pit with a special mine waiting for a tank to drive over him, or to run at a tank with special pole-mounted antitank explosives. That mentality didn't do them much good against overwhelming firepower... If there was such a thing as organised resistance against the U.S. government, the only chance would be to use terrorist and guerilla tactics, and with the widespread terrorisation of the population through the ever tightening grip of the government on society, I don't see that happening. Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) They might cause more of an uproar if they all jumped at the same time. ;-) -- 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/ |
|
#418
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Wilko" wrote in message ... Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) They might cause more of an uproar if they all jumped at the same time. ;-) Cute imagery. ka-WHUMP! However, IF (and I stress the 'IF' part, in case any of the Secret Police are reading this) there ever was an overthrow of the US government by some sort of armed cililian militia, it would not be through conventional warfare, as the militants wouldn't stand a chance in an head-to-head. I suspect there would be much more unconventional methods: a bomb in the senate chamber, another in the House, and an assassination of the Executive Branch. This would probably be done simulataneously with the assassination of several governors, which might put the management of the US, especially the part with guns, into total disarray, followed by some high-ranking military officer taking charge 'to keep the peace'. Basically, a military coup supported by a grassroots militia on site in several sensitive places. Currently, the worst that these backwoods military types can do is become a serious burden to the local Criminal Justice system, as well as running up a line at the local K-Mart when they are buying beer and cigarettes for their retreats. They ain't taking on the US army, or the National Guard, nohow, noway. --riverman Now, lets revisit this question in 20 years, when the US economy has caved in, the dollar is trading 1:1 against the Yen, debt holders have called in their chits, OPEC has decided to sell oil in Euros, and the EU and China are the world's economic giants. By then, a well aimed spitball might do the trick. And Americans will probably be a LOT less fat.... |
|
#419
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Wilko" wrote in message ... rick wrote: Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Take a look at the amount of teenage pregnancies, the amount of children dying at birth, the state of health of the entire population, and you'll find that despite the huge medical cost to society, it's not up to par with most western countries with older populations that spend a lot less on medicine. ======================== Nice little strawman you're trying to build there. Too bad that wasn't the discussion. He made the cooment about 'poor' people not getting proper care in the US. I mentioned one area where the percieved ideas he has is false. If the post wasn't snipped to shreds without annotation, and then replied to as you want it to be read, make a new post. Just repeating the "we don't have waiting lists" mantra doesn't prevent people from dying out on the street, or from going bancrupt because they can't pay all the high medical bills they were given because they couldn't afford health care insurance. ===================== Again, no where have you seen me say that, have you? Again, too bad all you can do is build these little strawmen by snipping out whole posts and then replying to things I haven't said. snip rest of spew... |
|
#420
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: 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. 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? Because the faults of socialized medicine are well known, the complaints many, and the impacts well documented. 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. Why do you do that? I thought you believe in "personal responsibility" and "personal responsibility" means that if you don't have enough money to pay for medical care, then you should die. That's not what I said. The difference between the US system and socialized medicine is that under socialized medicine, the government runs the operation and dictates who gets what care when and at what cost. In the US system, the government lets private industry run the show, but provides some financial support for the care of the indigent. The government does NOT ration, control, schedule, organize or otherwise dictate to consumers who, when or how they get treatment. Big difference. Enormous. I also wonder why you have public schools, that doesn't seem to fit with your definition of personal responsibility either. I happen to agree. I think public schools are a big waste of money, and that people should seek out and pay for private school education for their children. However, given the fact that there are many people who cannot afford private school education, it is appropriate for local government (the "local" part is significant) to provide free public basic education, funded with taxes approved and collected from the local citizenry. I utterly disagree with the federal government (or even the state government) getting involved in controlling public education. It is acceptable, however, for the federal and state government to supply funds to local schools...if they have no control over the use of the funds or control over teaching. Likewise, if the federal or state government wants to make grants from tax money to local hospitals to help defray the costs of treating the indigent, that's acceptable because the government is not exercising control over the providing of health care. My goodness, that's billions and billions of dollars going to subsidize poor families who can't take responsibility for sending their kids to private schools. As well they should. Getting a better job so you can afford to send your kids to school is a great motivator. And for those who don't care to educate their children, well, *somebody* needs to pick up trash and dig ditches, so I guess those lazy parents will be raising the next generation of grunt-laborers. If I were one of their kids, I'd sue my parents for failing to properly provide for my education. Besides, public education is entirely different from health care. The costs of public education are easily calculable and controllable, and each student receives the same education as every other, so there aren't a lot of individual variables that make prioritization necessary. All kids progress through the system at the same speed (with some exceptions) and only a few have "special needs" that have to be dealt with. This is unlike medicine, where each person has a completely different complaint and requires individual treatment. Not only that, but a failure in the education system merely leaves a child less well educated than another child, while failure in the medical system can kill people. Thus, your analogy is completely inapplicable from the get-go. -- 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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Linear Mode
