Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Heaven forbid people should read the 9th amendment.

Reading it is not enough. You need to understand it - which apparently is not so
easy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

Regards,

Ed White

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Heaven forbid people should read the 9th amendment.

Reading it is not enough. You need to understand it - which apparently is not so
easy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

Regards,

Ed White

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
>
> I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> DS
>


Further, Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
neo-Conservatives. Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts
went to the bone, where they should have gone to the fat.

My experience (ageing parents, two fairly recent children and their
maladies, friends surviving cancer) has been extremely positive. Waits
tend to be for MRIs, synthetic hip and knee replacements and such, 15
years ago, how long did you have to wait for such things? About 10
years! We keep forgetting that these are pretty new, expensive
technologies, some of which have not proven to be any more effective
than the old, cheap technologies.

The best news that you can hope for when you take your child into the
kids hospital here is that you have a long wait ahead of you! It means
that your kid is going to be OK and you likely should have waited till
morning and gone to your GP. If you get an orange sticker on your file
and they grab the kid and run, call your family and your priest! The
kid is in trouble. This I know from friends' experiences. I love to
wait at the kids ER!!!

Dan

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
>
> I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> DS
>


Further, Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
neo-Conservatives. Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts
went to the bone, where they should have gone to the fat.

My experience (ageing parents, two fairly recent children and their
maladies, friends surviving cancer) has been extremely positive. Waits
tend to be for MRIs, synthetic hip and knee replacements and such, 15
years ago, how long did you have to wait for such things? About 10
years! We keep forgetting that these are pretty new, expensive
technologies, some of which have not proven to be any more effective
than the old, cheap technologies.

The best news that you can hope for when you take your child into the
kids hospital here is that you have a long wait ahead of you! It means
that your kid is going to be OK and you likely should have waited till
morning and gone to your GP. If you get an orange sticker on your file
and they grab the kid and run, call your family and your priest! The
kid is in trouble. This I know from friends' experiences. I love to
wait at the kids ER!!!

Dan

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
>
> I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> DS
>


Further, Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
neo-Conservatives. Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts
went to the bone, where they should have gone to the fat.

My experience (ageing parents, two fairly recent children and their
maladies, friends surviving cancer) has been extremely positive. Waits
tend to be for MRIs, synthetic hip and knee replacements and such, 15
years ago, how long did you have to wait for such things? About 10
years! We keep forgetting that these are pretty new, expensive
technologies, some of which have not proven to be any more effective
than the old, cheap technologies.

The best news that you can hope for when you take your child into the
kids hospital here is that you have a long wait ahead of you! It means
that your kid is going to be OK and you likely should have waited till
morning and gone to your GP. If you get an orange sticker on your file
and they grab the kid and run, call your family and your priest! The
kid is in trouble. This I know from friends' experiences. I love to
wait at the kids ER!!!

Dan

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e13b4d55ee057f7ffdc53c6d9c2e1ce3@news.teranew s.com...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and
change
> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status
quo.
> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
> >sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay
for
> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar
driven
> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
> >energy.
>
> Enron was dollar driven as well.
>

Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
corruption.

> >You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism
in
> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed
the
> >war on "moral" grounds?).
>
> Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
> Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
> put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
> --

Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
old.

The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to Iran).
It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they mistakes?
Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to run a
country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had Communism
not been contained.


> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e13b4d55ee057f7ffdc53c6d9c2e1ce3@news.teranew s.com...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and
change
> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status
quo.
> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
> >sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay
for
> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar
driven
> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
> >energy.
>
> Enron was dollar driven as well.
>

Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
corruption.

> >You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism
in
> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed
the
> >war on "moral" grounds?).
>
> Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
> Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
> put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
> --

Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
old.

The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to Iran).
It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they mistakes?
Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to run a
country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had Communism
not been contained.


> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e13b4d55ee057f7ffdc53c6d9c2e1ce3@news.teranew s.com...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and
change
> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status
quo.
> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
> >sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay
for
> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar
driven
> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
> >energy.
>
> Enron was dollar driven as well.
>

Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
corruption.

> >You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism
in
> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed
the
> >war on "moral" grounds?).
>
> Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
> Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
> put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
> --

Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
old.

The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to Iran).
It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they mistakes?
Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to run a
country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had Communism
not been contained.


> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
> then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
> situation from a consumer's point of view.

No, they analyzed health care from the CR Editorial Staff's point of view. This is
not the same as any particular consumer's point of view, or even the average
consumer's point of view. I read CR, but I definitely don't agree that they
represent my point of view.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
> then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
> situation from a consumer's point of view.

No, they analyzed health care from the CR Editorial Staff's point of view. This is
not the same as any particular consumer's point of view, or even the average
consumer's point of view. I read CR, but I definitely don't agree that they
represent my point of view.

Ed