GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans
afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes
America's health care the best in the world."

- Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should either
be in prison or in a mental health care institution.

> America's health care the best in the world."

The US health care may rank among the best.
Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.

Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
- rising cost
- less service
- less quality
- less safety
- less reliability

Want examples?
Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months ago.
Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.

A nation is healthy when it can support its citizens by providing them good
and affordable education, health care, social security,
public transportation etc.
A healthy nation is a more productive one.
The state has little control over, and even less influence on these services
if they are left to the corporate world.
Expensive education and health care result in a weaker and less productive
nation.
Fewer people will have acces to the basic needs.
Those left out will be unable to be part of the economy and be a burdon to
it.

Any leader selling out to the industry clearly is not concerned with the
well-being of the nation he's been elected to represent.

Just my two cents.
To stop the flaming before it starts: the above opinion does not intend to
pick on the US or its president in particular.
It's aim is to make the reader think about the problem, and is directed
against all leaders filling their pockets while making the man/woman in the
street pay for it.

Ikke

"ikke" > wrote in
:

>> America's health care the best in the world."
>
> The US health care may rank among the best.

I think calling it health care is a joke. Health care implies
involvement and a concept of common weal. Except for Hawaii, no
government in the US has the cojones to put common welfare above
the almighty dollar. Clinton was the one who came closest.

It should be called what it actually is: the US health industry. At
least that would be honest and not pretending to care at all.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

ikke wrote:
>>America's health care the best in the world."
>
>
> The US health care may rank among the best.
> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
>
> Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
> - rising cost
> - less service
> - less quality
> - less safety
> - less reliability
>
> Want examples?
> Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
> distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
> Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
> wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months ago.
> Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
> investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
> It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.
>
> A nation is healthy when it can support its citizens by providing them good
> and affordable education, health care, social security,
> public transportation etc.
> A healthy nation is a more productive one.
> The state has little control over, and even less influence on these services
> if they are left to the corporate world.
> Expensive education and health care result in a weaker and less productive
> nation.
> Fewer people will have acces to the basic needs.
> Those left out will be unable to be part of the economy and be a burdon to
> it.
>
> Any leader selling out to the industry clearly is not concerned with the
> well-being of the nation he's been elected to represent.
>
> Just my two cents.
> To stop the flaming before it starts: the above opinion does not intend to
> pick on the US or its president in particular.
> It's aim is to make the reader think about the problem, and is directed
> against all leaders filling their pockets while making the man/woman in the
> street pay for it.
>
> Ikke
>

Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
control by government. Our Medicaid is a safety net for the poorest of the
poor; poor who don't qualify for that, like all the illegal immigrants,
flood hospitals and get free treatment. It's still ingrained in our psyche
that individuals are responsible for their own well being and have every
opportunity to get ahead. That may be outdated, but it struck me last night
that until the 1950's most people had no health insurance at all.

Just an observation on our differences. Who knows in the grand scheme of
things whether any view is best.

MTV

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:38:20 GMT, MTV >
wrote:

>ikke wrote:
>>>America's health care the best in the world."
>>
>>
>> The US health care may rank among the best.
>> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
>> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
>>
>> Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
>> - rising cost
>> - less service
>> - less quality
>> - less safety
>> - less reliability
>>
>> Want examples?
>> Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
>> distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
>> Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
>> wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months ago.
>> Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
>> investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
>> It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.
>>
>> A nation is healthy when it can support its citizens by providing them good
>> and affordable education, health care, social security,
>> public transportation etc.
>> A healthy nation is a more productive one.
>> The state has little control over, and even less influence on these services
>> if they are left to the corporate world.
>> Expensive education and health care result in a weaker and less productive
>> nation.
>> Fewer people will have acces to the basic needs.
>> Those left out will be unable to be part of the economy and be a burdon to
>> it.
>>
>> Any leader selling out to the industry clearly is not concerned with the
>> well-being of the nation he's been elected to represent.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>> To stop the flaming before it starts: the above opinion does not intend to
>> pick on the US or its president in particular.
>> It's aim is to make the reader think about the problem, and is directed
>> against all leaders filling their pockets while making the man/woman in the
>> street pay for it.
>>
>> Ikke
>>
>
>Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
>control by government. Our Medicaid is a safety net for the poorest of the
>poor; poor who don't qualify for that, like all the illegal immigrants,
>flood hospitals and get free treatment. It's still ingrained in our psyche
>that individuals are responsible for their own well being and have every
>opportunity to get ahead. That may be outdated, but it struck me last night
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that until the 1950's most people had no health insurance at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^

So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
that period?

>
>Just an observation on our differences. Who knows in the grand scheme of
>things whether any view is best.
>
>MTV
>
>

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
> of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> that period?
>

Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
affordable than it is today.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
> > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> > that period?
> >
>
> Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> affordable than it is today.

I remember when our family doctor could no longer charge $10 for an office
call and had to raise the price to $35, for the sake of medicare.

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
> > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> > that period?
> >
>
> Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> affordable than it is today.
>
>

the overhead for medicare is tiny compared to private insurance companies

the one sure thing when healthcare is turned over to for profits is that
the costs go way up -- and service goes down

there are problems of providing a high cost high demand service with
limited resources through government -- but none of these are solved by
private markets unless leaving people without care and bankrupting
everyone else with medical problems is the solution one is after

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
> > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> > that period?
> >
>
> Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> affordable than it is today.

The government's that meddled......were they socialist, capitalist or what?
I say capitalist, just to **** up what honest leftist were trying to do.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>Prior to government meddling health care was far more
>affordable than it is today.
>
>

Less medical technology and far fewer pills in the 1950's.

gld

john > wrote:
> MTV > wrote:
>
>>opportunity to get ahead. That may be outdated, but it struck me last night
>>that until the 1950's most people had no health insurance at all.
>
>So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
>of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
>that period?


Since when do the alleged "needs" of anybody for anything constitute a
moral demand upon another's property?

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

MTV > wrote:

>Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
>control by government.


"Belief" has nothing to do with it; *ethics* are the heart of the
matter, as in: What moral right do you have to rule me, or I you?

- - -


http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
January 20, 2004

What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist

by N. Stephan Kinsella


Butler Shaffer's recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted
discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas
I've also had along these lines.

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their
arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy
won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these
attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist
does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor
that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a
pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that
you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states
necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the
aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It 's quite
simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses
utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a)
aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states)
do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens,
which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense
agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the
countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a
single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists
think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is
justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and
anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression - the initiation of
force against innocent victims - is justified. No surprise; it is not
possible to show this. But criminals don't feel compelled to justify
aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the
grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused.
Anarchists don' t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for
one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that
private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not
occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at
least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be
with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.

Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone
could voluntarily choose to respect others' rights. Then there would be
no crime. It's easy to imagine. But given our experience with human
nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be
crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and
unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to
my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere
to reply, "but that's an impractical view" or "but that won't work,"
"since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be
crime - that not everyone will voluntarily respect others' rights - does
not mean that it's "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that
crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the
proposition that crime is wrong.

Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified,
it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won't work" or is
"impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is
unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not
enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow
anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously)
support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean
that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2

Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict
the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is
unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the
initiation of force against innocent victims - i.e., he shares the
criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need
is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his
needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state
thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or
condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as
that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not
opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else - making sure
certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost - but not peace and
cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and
even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked
aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the
same - innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the
stomach for this; others are more civilized - libertarian, one might say
- and prefer peace over violent struggle.

As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that
there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the
state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously
accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means
the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.

It's time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or
against it?

Notes

Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as
we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What
is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that
minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are
exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among
millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply
don't care much about.

Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or
"feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on
there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There
is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within
government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by
Alfred G. Cuzan, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzan argues
that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally - the
President does not literally force others in government to obey his
comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized,
hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good
anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible - indeed, that we never
really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we
are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already
have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors'
rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are
good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of
some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the
degree of goodness could rise - due to education or more universal
economic prosperity, say - sufficient to make support for the legitimacy
of states evaporate. It's just very unlikely.

Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston. His website is
www.StephanKinsella.com.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> MTV > wrote:
>
> >Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
> >control by government.
>
>
> "Belief" has nothing to do with it; *ethics* are the heart of the
> matter, as in: What moral right do you have to rule me, or I you?
>
> - - -
>
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
> January 20, 2004
>
> What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist
>
> by N. Stephan Kinsella
>
>
> Butler Shaffer's recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted
> discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas
> I've also had along these lines.
>
> Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their
> arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy
> won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these
> attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist
> does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor
> that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a
> pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that
> you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states
> necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the
> aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified.

Anarchists would make good targets then.

Wouldn't you right winger's say for the common good?

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> MTV > wrote:
>
> >Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
> >control by government.
>
>
> "Belief" has nothing to do with it; *ethics* are the heart of the
> matter, as in: What moral right do you have to rule me, or I you?
>
> - - -
>
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
> January 20, 2004
>
> What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist
>
> by N. Stephan Kinsella
>
>
> Butler Shaffer's recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted
> discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas
> I've also had along these lines.
>
> Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their
> arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy
> won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these
> attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist
> does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor
> that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a
> pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that
> you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states
> necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the
> aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It 's quite
> simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses
> utilitarians.
>
> Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a)
> aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states)
> do not necessarily employ aggression.
>
> Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens,
> which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense
> agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the
> countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a
> single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists
> think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)
>
> As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is
> justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and
> anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression - the initiation of
> force against innocent victims - is justified. No surprise; it is not
> possible to show this. But criminals don't feel compelled to justify
> aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?
>
> Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the
> grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused.
> Anarchists don' t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for
> one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.
>
> Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that
> private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not
> occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at
> least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be
> with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.
>
> Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone
> could voluntarily choose to respect others' rights. Then there would be
> no crime. It's easy to imagine. But given our experience with human
> nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be
> crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and
> unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to
> my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere
> to reply, "but that's an impractical view" or "but that won't work,"
> "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be
> crime - that not everyone will voluntarily respect others' rights - does
> not mean that it's "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that
> crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the
> proposition that crime is wrong.
>
> Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified,
> it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won't work" or is
> "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is
> unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not
> enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow
> anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously)
> support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean
> that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2
>
> Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict
> the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is
> unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the
> initiation of force against innocent victims - i.e., he shares the
> criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need
> is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his
> needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state
> thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or
> condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as
> that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not
> opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else - making sure
> certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost - but not peace and
> cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and
> even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked
> aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the
> same - innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the
> stomach for this; others are more civilized - libertarian, one might say
> - and prefer peace over violent struggle.
>
> As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that
> there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the
> state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously
> accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means
> the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.
>
> It's time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or
> against it?
>
> Notes
>
> Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as
> we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What
> is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that
> minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are
> exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among
> millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply
> don't care much about.
>
> Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or
> "feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on
> there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There
> is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within
> government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by
> Alfred G. Cuzan, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzan argues
> that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally - the
> President does not literally force others in government to obey his
> comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized,
> hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good
> anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible - indeed, that we never
> really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we
> are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already
> have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors'
> rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are
> good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of
> some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the
> degree of goodness could rise - due to education or more universal
> economic prosperity, say - sufficient to make support for the legitimacy
> of states evaporate. It's just very unlikely.
>
> Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston. His website is
> www.StephanKinsella.com.
>
> --
>
> Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
> "An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
> -- Ambrose Bierce

In article >,
"ikke" > wrote:

>> America's health care the best in the world."
>
>The US health care may rank among the best.
>Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.


American health-care is almost thoroughly socialist now. (When I need my
teeth worked on, I take a month-long round-trip vacation to the
Philippines, and have them done there for a tenth the cost.)


>The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
>
>Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
>- rising cost
>- less service
>- less quality
>- less safety
>- less reliability


So communism "works better"?


>Want examples?
>Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
>distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
>Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
>wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months ago.
>Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
>investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
>It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.


Nothing can truly be considered "privatized" if "privitization" means
one is now subject to high tax rates whereas before one was subsidized.

Taxation is simply regulation via other means.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

American health care is by no means even near socialism.
You can get many things dirt cheap in 3rd world countries. The
corporations do and then turn around and sell them to us at obscene profits!

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ikke" > wrote:
>
> >> America's health care the best in the world."
> >
> >The US health care may rank among the best.
> >Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
>
>
> American health-care is almost thoroughly socialist now. (When I need my
> teeth worked on, I take a month-long round-trip vacation to the
> Philippines, and have them done there for a tenth the cost.)
>
>
> >The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
> >
> >Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
> >- rising cost
> >- less service
> >- less quality
> >- less safety
> >- less reliability
>
>
> So communism "works better"?
>
>
> >Want examples?
> >Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
> >distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
> >Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
> >wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months
ago.
> >Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
> >investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
> >It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.
>
>
> Nothing can truly be considered "privatized" if "privitization" means
> one is now subject to high tax rates whereas before one was subsidized.
>
> Taxation is simply regulation via other means.
>
> --
>
> Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
> "An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
> -- Ambrose Bierce

"moveeman1" > wrote:

> American health care is by no means even near socialism.


(Translation: Hillary lost her bid to streamline it into raw communism
lorded over by legions of apparatcheks under her command.)


> Wouldn't you right winger's say for the common good?


I have no idea what a "right winger" (sic) would say, but I'll tell you
right now, if you can handle it, that the "common good" is a fallacy
since judgement (e.g., "It is 'good' or 'bad'?") is something only
individuals are capable of.

Collectives are not volitional entities.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:48:59 -0330, "moveeman1"
> wrote:

> American health care is by no means even near socialism.
> You can get many things dirt cheap in 3rd world countries. The
>corporations do and then turn around and sell them to us at obscene profits!

In a previous message it was said that the Net Profit of these
corporations is 15%. Do you call this an obscene profit?
Pan Ohco

> > America's health care the best in the world."

Why then does a country such as Cuba have significantly higher life expectancy ?

Why then are there so many kids in the USA who do not receive various
shots/treatment to prevent diseases ?

Why then are so many american obese/overweight ?

The USA may have the most high tech gadgets into its hospitals, but this
doesn't translate into better general health for the whole population. health
is more than expensive machines in hospitals.

You may be better than any other country for high tech brain transplants, but
you don't seem to be doing so well preventing childhood diseases.

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> > > America's health care the best in the world."
>
> Why then does a country such as Cuba have significantly higher life
expectancy ?

We do not aspire to be Cuber.

nobody > wrote in
:

>> > America's health care the best in the world."
>
> Why then does a country such as Cuba have significantly higher
> life expectancy ?

Because they don't allow people to carry concealed weapons as one of
their kanstitooshonal rights. Because they have a better sense of the
word "care" in the expression "medical care". I would not be worried
in the slightest in a hospital in Cuba as I am not in a hospital in
Canada. I would be in a hospital in the US. There are just too many
frikkin levels of ca rich, less rich, not so rich, not very rich at
all, bourgeois (without insurance), working poor and destitute.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why then are so many american obese/overweight ?
>

Because they eat a lot.

In article >, nobody >
wrote:

>> > America's health care the best in the world."
>
>Why does a country such as Cuba have significantly higher life expectancy?


A significantly higher ability of the Cuban government to make sure no
data other than official propaganda reaches the ears of credulous
foreign socialists?


>Why then are there so many kids in the USA who do not receive various
>shots/treatment to prevent diseases ?


Why does any of this "need" constitude a moral demand on my property?

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Mike1 wrote:
>
>>Why then are there so many kids in the USA who do not receive various
>>shots/treatment to prevent diseases ?

> Why does any of this "need" constitude a moral demand on my property?
>

Read any Dickens lately? You, sir, are Scrooge personified. The chains
on Marley's ghost will be nothing compared to yours.

Honestly, it's hard to believe sentiments like yours still exist.

wrote:

>Mike1 wrote:
>> Why does any of this "need" constitude a moral demand on my property?
>
>Read any Dickens lately? You, sir, are Scrooge personified.


Scrooge was a softie.

You haven't answered my question.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

nobody wrote
>Why then does a country such as Cuba have significantly
>higher life expectancy ?

http://www.who.int/health-systems-pe...ce/whr2000.htm
Life expectancy (years)
81.9 Japan
81.2 Monaco
80.6 San Marino
80.6 Switzerland
80.4 Australia
80.4 Sweden
80.3 Andorra
80.1 Iceland
79.8 Canada
79.7 France
79.7 Italy
79.6 Singapore
79.6 Spain
79.4 Austria
79.4 Israel
79.1 Norway
78.9 New Zealand
78.8 Luxembourg
78.7 Germany
78.6 Netherlands
78.4 Belgium
78.4 Greece
78.2 Finland
78.2 United Kingdom
78.1 Malta
77.3 Cyprus
77.3 United States of America
77.2 Denmark
77.1 Costa Rica
77.1 Cuba

> The US health care may rank among the best.
> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.

> Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
> - rising cost
> - less service
> - less quality
> - less safety
> - less reliability

Unfortunate, but true. Has anyone ever known of any program of the
federal government which was managed successfully? The only way to
make the current health care system worse is to allow the government
to control it.

And recall that the fiasco known as HillaryCare was DOA in '92.
But if you want to see what a mess the federal government could make
of health care, take a look at that proposal. One of the more
striking items -in my opinion- being that congress would _not_ be
covered by the plan. And neither would their families or their staff.
They would be managing a program which would impact on the rest of us
while continuing to enjoy their taxpayer-paid, no waiting, state of the
art, full coverage, health care. All of which would then be a distant
memory to the rest of the population.

"Paul Middlestat" > wrote in message
om...
> > The US health care may rank among the best.
> > Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
> > The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
>
> > Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
> > - rising cost
> > - less service
> > - less quality
> > - less safety
> > - less reliability
>
> Unfortunate, but true. Has anyone ever known of any program of the
> federal government which was managed successfully? The only way to
> make the current health care system worse is to allow the government
> to control it.
>
> And recall that the fiasco known as HillaryCare was DOA in '92.
> But if you want to see what a mess the federal government could make
> of health care, take a look at that proposal. One of the more
> striking items -in my opinion- being that congress would _not_ be
> covered by the plan. And neither would their families or their staff.
> They would be managing a program which would impact on the rest of us
> while continuing to enjoy their taxpayer-paid, no waiting, state of the
> art, full coverage, health care. All of which would then be a distant
> memory to the rest of the population.

The Canadian system has the provinces doing the actual administration. Would
you feel more confident in your state being able to do a credible job?

"ikke" > wrote in message
...
> > America's health care the best in the world."
>
> The US health care may rank among the best.
> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
>
> Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
> - rising cost
> - less service
> - less quality
> - less safety
> - less reliability
>
> Want examples?
> Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
> distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
> Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
> wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months
ago.
> Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
> investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
> It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.
>
> A nation is healthy when it can support its citizens by providing them
good
> and affordable education, health care, social security,
> public transportation etc.
> A healthy nation is a more productive one.
> The state has little control over, and even less influence on these
services
> if they are left to the corporate world.
> Expensive education and health care result in a weaker and less productive
> nation.
> Fewer people will have acces to the basic needs.
> Those left out will be unable to be part of the economy and be a burdon to
> it.
>
> Any leader selling out to the industry clearly is not concerned with the
> well-being of the nation he's been elected to represent.
>
> Just my two cents.
> To stop the flaming before it starts: the above opinion does not intend to
> pick on the US or its president in particular.
> It's aim is to make the reader think about the problem,
>
Indeed I have thought about it and it seems to me that
a combination of public and private is best. For example,
public roads and private automobiles (do you want the
government designing and building automobiles?), public
airways and private broadcast stations, etc.

Of course private business always have the temptation
to fix prices, limit competition, etc. That is why there
are laws against such things. But with government
control, quality always slides down hill to a level of
"good enough" - which has no relation to "good".

How good are the government-provided roads in
your area? In both quality and capacity?

How good is the government-provided health
care in Canada and England?

Think about it for a while.

Tony

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:55:54 -0600, "Tony" > wrote:

>snipped


>>
>Indeed I have thought about it and it seems to me that
>a combination of public and private is best. For example,
>public roads and private automobiles (do you want the
>government designing and building automobiles?), public
>airways and private broadcast stations, etc.



>
>Of course private business always have the temptation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to fix prices, limit competition, etc. That is why there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are laws against such things. But with government
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What a joke! There are laws against such things?

Ther is no competition in the ownership of:

radio stations

tv stations

newspapers

A few powerful corporations in each category own most of them.

>control, quality always slides down hill to a level of
>"good enough" - which has no relation to "good".
>
>How good are the government-provided roads in
>your area? In both quality and capacity?
>
>How good is the government-provided health
>care in Canada and England?
>
>Think about it for a while.
>
>Tony
>

"ikke" > wrote in message >...
> > America's health care the best in the world."

> The US health care may rank among the best.
> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.


FOR AN INSIGHT into the inadequacy of the president's health care
proposals put forward in his State of the Union speech last Tuesday,
look closely at a strike by supermarket workers in Southern
California. For more than three months, 70,000 people have been on
strike, protesting proposed dramatic reductions in their health care
benefits. Their employers, three large supermarket chains, say they
need the changes because they must compete with discount, nonunion
chains such as Wal-Mart, whose health-care packages are famously
stingy.

Some union organizers doubt the truth of this explanation. But
whatever the merits of this particular strike, it's significant
because it forms part of a growing trend. Analysts at the AFL-CIO say
that health care benefits, not wages, are now "at the center of every
labor dispute" and cite the California strike as only the latest
example of a "fundamental transformation" taking place in the
relationship between employers and employees -- a change that could
result in the eventual erosion of the traditional, employer-based
health care system. The economy alone is not to blame: Rising health
costs and the long-term shift from manufacturing to services and small
business are also helping reduce the numbers of Americans with
employer-provided insurance. True, some 65 percent of working-age
Americans were still insured by their employers in 2002, according to
the Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured. But this number represents a
reduction from 68 percent in 2000. Partly as a result, the number of
uninsured increased, between 2001 and 2002, by 2.4 million people --
the largest real increase since 1997, meaning that 17.3 percent of
Americans now have no insurance at all.

Labor leaders acknowledge that this is a national problem, one that
they cannot solve at the negotiating table, even if the supermarkets
ultimately improve their offer. But does the president acknowledge it?
From his speech, it was hard to tell. He acknowledged rising health
care costs and spoke of the need for greater computerization and
greater control of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. But he left
out one of the main sources of those rising costs: the burden that the
uninsured place on public hospitals and doctors. He spoke of giving
low-income people a tax credit to buy health care but failed to
explain why the working poor, for whom taxes represent a smaller part
of their expenditures in any case, would want to buy individual health
care accounts that would be more expensive than the group health care
plans employers now provide. He also talked about association health
plans, which would allow small businesses to band together to purchase
group health care. Yet such organizations exist already, not terribly
successfully. Current proposals on the table would allow them to
escape consumer regulation -- which could mean they destabilize the
current insurance markets and wind up hurting the consumers they are
intended to insure.

Mr. Bush did state that he remains opposed to a "government-run health
system." Fine -- but if he wishes to avoid that outcome, Mr. Bush
needs to think more creatively about how he is going to keep the
nation's private health care system viable. A peculiar jumble of old
ideas, long discussed but never acted upon, isn't going to do it.

Unhealthy, WP - Sunday, January 25, 2004; Page B06

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message >...
> GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
> keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans
> afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes
> America's health care the best in the world."
>
> - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should either
> be in prison or in a mental health care institution.

I have to laugh but how tragic that million folk would believe such nonsense
liars again.

"Red Cloud" > wrote in message
m...
> "Oelewapper" > wrote in message
>...
> > GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
> > keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more
Americans
> > afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that
makes
> > America's health care the best in the world."
> >
> > - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should
either
> > be in prison or in a mental health care institution.
>
> I have to laugh but how tragic that million folk would believe such
nonsense
> liars again.

Sober up.

>> I have to laugh but how tragic that million folk would believe such
>> nonsense liars again.

> It's nonsense all right, and it's untrue too... but it's not lies, and
these
> people are not liars. What we're really talking about here are
> lie-programs - by lying terrorists of whom some, according to British
> intelligence, have links to Al Queda....

GWB is either insane, or on a constant high - maybe both. As a matter of
fact GWB and his buddy TB are simply out of this world, on another planet.
On 15 January during his NASA policy speech, GWB declared :

"Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive.
Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far-lower
gravity using far less energy and thus far less cost".

NASA should keep its nose out of my passenger airline data, and the
President's ought to have his head checked...

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:13:56 +0100, Oelewapper wrote:

>
>>> I have to laugh but how tragic that million folk would believe such
>>> nonsense liars again.
>
>> It's nonsense all right, and it's untrue too... but it's not lies, and
> these
>> people are not liars. What we're really talking about here are
>> lie-programs - by lying terrorists of whom some, according to British
>> intelligence, have links to Al Queda....
>
> GWB is either insane, or on a constant high - maybe both.

Nah. Just plain stupid. No need for fancy explanations.

devil > wrote:

>> GWB is either insane, or on a constant high - maybe both.
>
>Nah. Just plain stupid. No need for fancy explanations.


So GWB is insane for committing the US to what JFK committed the US to
forty years earlier?


(Insanity is beside the point; I say they should immediately stop
stealing my money for any projects whatsoever.)

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
> GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
> keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans
> afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that
makes
> America's health care the best in the world."

There is statistical evidence such as infant mortality rates and life
expectancy that might contradict this statement. But, to me, there isn't a
whole lot wrong with the American health care delivery system. I agree with
Bush on this (he says, holding his nose).

On the other hand, the health *insurance* system is badly broken. It allows
insurers to cherry pick, and adds extra bureacracy that costs an estimated
at $200 - $250 billion annually when compared to a government single-payer
system such as Canada's. This extra money contributes nothing to health
care. It's just a collosal waste.

If this money could be saved, think of what the U.S. could do with it. It
could be used to insure the estimated 40 million people presently uninsured.
Or we could use it to invade two more countries

Here are links to a couple of studies on this topic:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623


>
> - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should
either
> be in prison or in a mental health care institution.
>
>

"Guy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Oelewapper" > wrote in message
> ...
> > GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
> > keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more
Americans
> > afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that
> makes
> > America's health care the best in the world."
>
> There is statistical evidence such as infant mortality rates and life
> expectancy that might contradict this statement. But, to me, there isn't a
> whole lot wrong with the American health care delivery system. I agree
with
> Bush on this (he says, holding his nose).
>
> On the other hand, the health *insurance* system is badly broken. It
allows
> insurers to cherry pick, and adds extra bureacracy that costs an estimated
> at $200 - $250 billion annually when compared to a government single-payer
> system such as Canada's. This extra money contributes nothing to health
> care. It's just a collosal waste.

Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer is a
death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's health
care needs.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:

> Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer is a
> death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's health
> care needs.

You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?

On 01/21/2004 4:34 PM, in article
, "devil" >
opined:

> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>> Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer is a
>> death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's health
>> care needs.
>
> You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?
>
>
I know enough that any sick canadian with dough heads south for care.
--
================================================== ==============
There's nothing like the sight of the gallows to focus the mind.
================================================== ==============