basskisser wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 3 Aug 2006 06:16:27 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 3 Aug 2006 04:32:37 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 2 Aug 2006 12:51:29 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 2 Aug 2006 06:11:49 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Slow steady wins the race.

I don't think John Force would buy into that.
John Force is an idiot.

And drag racing sucks - unless it's on the street and it's a Mustang
or some crappy rice burner.

That's when the 'Vette teaches 'em a lesson. :)
John Force is a self made multi millionaire. He started with nothing,
made a fortune. Drag racing is one of the most technologically advanced
forms of piston engine racing there is.
Right.

Ever hear of F1 racing?
Yes, why? Drag racing is still one of the most technologically advanced
forms of piston engine racing there is. At 6000+ horsepower, an F1
engine is a horsepower midget in comparison at around 750 hp.
John Force probably started with much less than you, and built a
multi million dollar conglomerate. Have you?
Yep.
Yeah, sure......
Stick to things you know about Bassy...

Just what is it in this previous post that you are eluding to that I
don't know? Be specific.
Specific? Sure.

You're a tautological buffoon who sits in his mother's basement
endlessly trying to emulate his intellectual superiors by engaging in
fruitless argument over anything and everything all the while never
realizing that he is merely dribbling and drooling vacuous statements
in a torrent of mental masturbation leading to the self-delusion that
he is brilliantly mastering the subject when in fact those who
actually contribute meaningful, educated and literate commentary on
both sides of any discussion secretly laugh their collective asses off
watching the one man clown show that is you.

Specific enough?

Nice. and you expect people to think you're credible? I know a lot
about racing. But, you instantly, and wrongly eluded that I didn't. So,
when called to the mat, all you can do is come up with childish name
calling and petty insults. And to top it off, ALL of your above blather
has absolutely no truth, and further, you don't know a damned thing
about me, so it was posted in pure ignorance.

Kevin, you were described and slammed in one sentence and yet you still
persist. I have to give you credit for tenacity.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:12:32 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Still why is the health care people receive in the US better than
anywhere
else in the world, even those socialist countries?

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. I have heard it argued that
we
have the best emergency health care system, with all the bells and
whistles, but if you were to look at statistics directly related to
health
care, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. we aren't at the top of
the
list.

I posted this link to another of your posts:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10515

If money were no object, and you could choose to have a lifesaving
procedure anywhere in the world, where would you choose to have it done?

Israel.

Why? It seems as if their best doctors are working in NY.

Friends there are amazed at the quality of the care, and they've lived here,
too.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:36:47 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Why do Canadian's come to the US for health care? Because they can see a
doctor or get an MRI next week rather the 10 months from now.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10515

"Most of what we hear about the Canadian health care system is negative;
in particular, the long waiting times for medical procedures. But we
found that waiting times affect few patients, only 3.5% of Canadians vs.
0.7% of people in the U.S."

How is that not significant? If I wrote the headline, it would read:
"Five times as many Canadian patients are affected by long waiting times
compared to American patients".

The fact that the author downplays that important fact, yet hypes another
fact like "9.9% of U.S. respondents couldn't afford medicine vs. 5.1% in
Canada", shows his bias.

No matter what country you're talking about, why should it EVER be a luxury
item? I know the usual drivel: It's not mentioned in the Constitution, but
that's not a good enough reason.

thunder wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:34:27 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


We have about 12 to 15 million people that want a better place to live
than central America and I wonder why they have not just passed through
the US to Canada?

What makes you think they aren't? Canada is more welcoming to the
migrant, with a net migration rate of 5.85 migrants/1000. This is
opposed to the U.S. rate of 3.18/1000. As with most First World nations,
Canada uses immigration to maintain a growing economy.

Canada also has a considerable illegal migrant issue. The difference is
they make it easier for the illegal to become legal than we do.

How many unskilled persons have been allowed to immigrate into Canada
within the last 25 years? Remember, I said unskilled persons have been
allowed to immigrate into Canada? Allowing wealth people from Asia and
Europe doesn't count.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

If you can't explain why it is such a good thing then you are just
being argumentative.
I don't have to explain it. If a survey of human beings indicates that
they like their country, who the **** are we to criticize their
economic system? Having said that, I know why you do it: You lump all
socialist countries into one big category, so you think Finland equals
the USSR. Do as you wish.
Did you forget to take your lithium today Doug?

You are the one that is getting all hot and bothered because people are
not taking your word as gospel regarding the socio-economic systems you
prefer.

I prefer this one, so I live here. You, on the other hand, think you have
information that the Finns are unaware of.

Finland is still a socialist state and all of the freedoms of a country
like and only like the US are not available to them.

Which freedoms?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:12:32 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Still why is the health care people receive in the US better than
anywhere
else in the world, even those socialist countries?

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. I have heard it argued that
we
have the best emergency health care system, with all the bells and
whistles, but if you were to look at statistics directly related to
health
care, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. we aren't at the top of
the
list.

I posted this link to another of your posts:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10515

If money were no object, and you could choose to have a lifesaving
procedure anywhere in the world, where would you choose to have it done?

Israel.

Shimon Glick, M.D., Professor of Internal Medicine and Chairman of the
Division of Medicine at Ben Gurion University Faculty of Health Sciences in
Beer Sheva, Israel disagrees with you:

" And yet, the quality of health ca there is no place in the world you
can get better than in America. "

http://tinyurl.com/ouozd

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...


If you don't mind paying $700.00 - 800.00 out of pocket, you can get
an MRI scan within a week or two here at a private clinic.

If Joe USA with a company paid HMO health plan had to do that, he'd
scream bloody murder.
Those without a health plan will get it for free, if it is related to a
life threatening injury or disease.

HMOs and PTOs screwed up health insurance here in the USA royally,
IMHO. We should go back to inexpensive major medical coverage for
catastrophic injury or illness. The rest we should pay for and it
should be free for those that can't.

Eisboch


I agree. If I need an x-ray and money's tight, I can put it on a credit
card. And, there's never a problem with $60 office visits to the
internist. Meanwhile, I'm paying $300 a month for Blue Choice, for
medical needs which may never happen. I'd love to have a policy that
covered everything over X amount - $2K a year, or some such thing.

Then get a Medical Savings Account:
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publ...hIns/MSAs.html

Yeah...that's on my list of things to do during vacation, when the damned
phones stop ringing. Speaking of work, can I interest you in 1150 cases
(9,200 64 oz bottles) of Indian Summer apple juice? $16.00 per case,
delivered, but you have to take the whole truck. $18,400.00. Net 10 days.

Plastic or glass bottles?

thunder wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:36:47 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Why do Canadian's come to the US for health care? Because they can see a
doctor or get an MRI next week rather the 10 months from now.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10515

National Health Care, no thanks.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...


While the separate arguments he makes looks pretty good on their face,
when you put them together it seems a bit like leaving the hen house
unlocked, and handing the keys to the fox. Basically, let the bad oil
companies alone set the price for the raw material they need, as they
see fit? How's that gonna work?


What are you talking about??? The henhouse is *already* unlocked! The
presence of non-industry gamblers in the hedging process is the largest
part of the problem. Are you saying they *belong* in the futures market
because they somehow keep the oil companies honest???

The world according to Doug Kanter, aka JoeSpareBedroom, sure must be a
rigid one. If I have money to invest or speculate on commodities or
futures why should I be limited to specific vehicles?

Your world doesn't sound like a place most of us Americans want to live
in.


It's already that kind of world. Walk into a brokerage firm and tell them
you want to play with uncovered call options. There's a 50/50 chance that
they'll walk you to the door because the regulations are designed to prevent
people from jumping off bridges.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:12:32 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Still why is the health care people receive in the US better than
anywhere
else in the world, even those socialist countries?

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. I have heard it argued that
we
have the best emergency health care system, with all the bells and
whistles, but if you were to look at statistics directly related to
health
care, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. we aren't at the top of
the
list.

I posted this link to another of your posts:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10515

If money were no object, and you could choose to have a lifesaving
procedure anywhere in the world, where would you choose to have it done?

Israel.

Shimon Glick, M.D., Professor of Internal Medicine and Chairman of the
Division of Medicine at Ben Gurion University Faculty of Health Sciences
in Beer Sheva, Israel disagrees with you:

" And yet, the quality of health ca there is no place in the world you
can get better than in America. "

http://tinyurl.com/ouozd

It's as anecdotal as my statement.