GMO foods

[notbob]

I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?

nb

[notbob]

On 2014-11-13, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:

> Nice nose, BTW. It must be cold there!

Couldn't be me. He has hair up above his earlobes. ;)

nb

[Pete C.]

Troll-o-Meter = Full Scale


There are two main issues with GMO foods:

1. The make the scientifically challenged population paranoid with
unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios.

2. For the GMOs that are disease / insect resistant they are a short
term solution only since diseases and insects have this little thing
called evolution and they evolve their way back to infecting/infesting
the GMO crops. This is already happening with some of the earlier GMO
crops.

[sf]

How thick would you like your serving of pesticides?



--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

[Pete C.]

sf wrote:
>
> On 13 Nov 2014 17:33:15 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
> > I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> > lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> > bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
> >
> How thick would you like your serving of pesticides?

And the GMOs built-in pesticides are so different from the sprayed on
pesticides of non-GMO crops?

Organic is all peachy and lulls people into a false sense of security
just like "herd immunity" with vaccinations, then a blight of whatever
sort comes around and you have massive crop failures and suddenly people
are starving, much like the anti vaccination crowd is bringing back all
manner of nasty diseases that were forgotten and now kids are dying as a
result.

For my little hermit farm as I get it going, I'll do what I can organic,
but I'll have a dammed good supply of fungicide and pesticide on the
shelf as a backup.

[Pete C.]

Bruce wrote:

> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
> up their own mind about using them or not.

Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.

[Pico Rico]

"Bruce" <Br...@Bruce.invalid> wrote in message
news:64cb6at4tq3emjo7g...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:19:08 -0800, The Other Guy
> <Knews...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce <Br...@Bruce.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
>>>>> up their own mind about using them or not.
>>>>
>>>>Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.
>>>

>>>Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
>>
>>Right, because the average consumer is smart enough to MAKE the right
>>choices.
>
> Are you suggesting withholding information from consumers because
> they're too stupid to use it sensibly? :)

that was the premise behind Obummercare.

[Janet B]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:37:05 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
wrote:

>

The problem is that GMO plants can escape.. There is currently a big
payout for Idaho, Washington and Oregon. It seems that a wheat that
was only 'tested' ten years ago, escaped and is currently found in
fields in those 3 states.
Janet US

[Pete C.]

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:49:36 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>

> Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.

You mean like the cult of climate change clinging to their falsified
data?

[Pete C.]

Well, sort of. It was more a scam to buy the votes of the 4% of the US
population who didn't have health insurance and wanted it.

I've had essentially the same health insurance for some 17 years now.
For 16 years pre-Obamacare my premiums increased about 4%/yr, my co-pays
were very low and there was no co-insurance deductible. In the one year
post Obamacare (and not even full effect yet), my premiums have
increased 12%, co-pays 50%, deductible 600%. This year it has cost me
approximately $4,000 more that it would have on any prior year and I
don't use much health care at all.

[Dave Smith]

On 2014-11-14 9:29 AM, Janet B wrote:

> The problem is that GMO plants can escape.. There is currently a big
> payout for Idaho, Washington and Oregon. It seems that a wheat that
> was only 'tested' ten years ago, escaped and is currently found in
> fields in those 3 states.
>

Funny how that product can be identified in other local fields but some
here are concerned about the cost of labeling GMO foods as a result of
expensive testing. One of my issues about GMO is the way it allows
companies to patent genetic material and the way that they insist on
licensing fees to use their seed. Farmers used to retain a portion of
their crop to use for seed for the next year's crop. It certainly made
more sense for them do that. They saved the cost of trucking the crop to
the buyer and then having to pay more to buy seed and truck it back.
Monsanto does not allow that. If you buy their GMO product and save
seed for replanting, you have to pay them. If your neighbours have GMO
and it starts growing in your fields you owe them money, and I think
that stinks.

[Pete C.]

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:48:32 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

>
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> How thick would you like your serving of pesticides?
> >
> > And the GMOs built-in pesticides are so different from the sprayed on
> > pesticides of non-GMO crops?
>

> There's nothing preventing pesticides from being sprayed on GMO crops
> the same as non-GMO crops.

Nothing preventing, other than cost. Much of the premise of the GMO
crops was to reduce or eliminate spraying pesticides. As noted however
it has a short term gain since the pests evolve resistance to the GMO
crops.

[Pete C.]

Dave Smith wrote:

> If your neighbours have GMO
> and it starts growing in your fields you owe them money, and I think
> that stinks.

I've got to call urban (rural?) legend on this. There is more than
enough (baseless) anti-GMO sentiment that if that was a real issue there
would be a well funded counter suit for "pollen trespass" and claims for
damage to the farmer's non-GMO crops as a result of the contamination.

[sf]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce <Br...@Bruce.invalid> wrote:

> Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
>

Agree.

[sf]

and people are benefiting from finally having affordable healthcare.

[Paul M. Cook]

"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:cck8ar...@mid.individual.net...

>I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
>

No. NO! Alright - NO as in NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!

This message brought to you by Monsanto - the company that just wants to
fill every tummy with nourishing food. EVen if it kills you. Got that?
You better or you can talk to our lawyers.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Pete C.]

You mean the 4% of the US population? The 4% that is benefiting at the
expense of the 96% of the US population who has seen huge increases in
their costs or lost their excellent insurance entirely due to Obamacare?
The 96% who could sign up for Obamacare to get coverage vastly inferior
to what they previously had so that their costs are still vastly higher
than before even if the premiums are "lower"? Just this year Obamacare
cost me over $4,000 in premiums and health care costs that I would not
have had in any of the prior 16 years for the exact same usage of health
care.

[Dave Smith]

On 2014-11-14 11:04 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> If your neighbours have GMO
>> and it starts growing in your fields you owe them money, and I think
>> that stinks.
>
> I've got to call urban (rural?) legend on this.

Yes. I am well aware that you would rather play the denial game than to
do the research.

>There is more than
> enough (baseless) anti-GMO sentiment that if that was a real issue there
> would be a well funded counter suit for "pollen trespass" and claims for
> damage to the farmer's non-GMO crops as a result of the contamination.
>

That might help to explain Monsanto's case before they US Supreme Court
where the ruling upheld their ability to sue farmers whose fields had
been accidentally contaminated by Monsanto material and it denied
farmers standing in cases against Monsanto for the contamination of
their crops. FWIW. There have been more than 100 suits against farmers
for unauthorized use of the genetically modified seed and 700 settled
without going to court.


















http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

[Pico Rico]

"Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us> wrote in message
news:Jip9w.655428$1s.5...@fx05.iad...

>
> Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>> "Bruce" <Br...@Bruce.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:64cb6at4tq3emjo7g...@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:19:08 -0800, The Other Guy
>> > <Knews...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce <Br...@Bruce.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can
>> >>>>> make
>> >>>>> up their own mind about using them or not.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.
>> >>>
>> >>>Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
>> >>
>> >>Right, because the average consumer is smart enough to MAKE the right
>> >>choices.
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting withholding information from consumers because
>> > they're too stupid to use it sensibly? :)
>>
>
>> that was the premise behind Obummercare.
>
> Well, sort of. It was more a scam to buy the votes of the 4% of the US
> population who didn't have health insurance and wanted it.

no, those people would have taken their free insurance no matter what. The
lie was to avoid the masses from realizing what was happening and resisting.

>
> I've had essentially the same health insurance for some 17 years now.
> For 16 years pre-Obamacare my premiums increased about 4%/yr, my co-pays
> were very low and there was no co-insurance deductible. In the one year
> post Obamacare (and not even full effect yet), my premiums have
> increased 12%, co-pays 50%, deductible 600%. This year it has cost me
> approximately $4,000 more that it would have on any prior year and I
> don't use much health care at all.

My situation is even worse. Lost good doctors, policy cancelled, premiums
higher, taxes higher, new tax imposed. A double whammy would be an
improvement.

[Pete C.]

Bruce wrote:

> A sign of civilization. Not surprising Republicans are against it.

4% of the population is benefiting. 96% of the population has been
significantly harmed by huge increases in health care costs.

[Nunya Bidnits]

"Pete C." wrote in message news:MHt9w.723853$Fo3.1...@fx09.iad...

>4% of the population is benefiting. 96% of the population has been
>significantly harmed by huge increases in health care costs.

Actually the caps on maximum out of pocket are far more reasonable for
everyone, intended to prevent catastrophic financial ruin caused by health
problems, including those people and diseases which insurance companies have
abandoned in their prime directive, which is to raise stockholder dividends
off of the commodity of human pain and suffering. Their primary purpose is
not to help sick people, but to make money on sick people, making their very
existence fraudulent and morally repugnant.

Health insurance companies in the US by definition are using disease and
misery as a commodity, and big pharma only wants to produce treatments, not
cures, to make sure stockholder cash flow continues. This is what controls
our healthcare system.

It's utterly immoral and uncivilized. Health insurance for profit which
raises the cost of everything in return for nothing received by the patent
except higher bills? It should not exist in any country with paved streets,
schools and running water.

The problem with Obamacare is the failure to do one of these things
1. Produce a single payer system
2. Produce free healthcare for all
3. At least produce Medicare for people in their 50s, an age group which
drives all costs through the ceiling.

As long as healthcare is primarily in the hands of greedy corporations
preying on your worst misfortunes to enrich themselves, we will never have
decent or affordable healthcare systems, and we will continue to pay
exorbitantly out of pocket whether we have insurance or not.

Obama should have jammed true healthcare reforms up the collective
Republican arse in his first two years when he had the chance. But
unfortunately, his own reelection prospects seem to have gotten in the way
of truly decisive, historic action. Instead we got a lot of line item stuff,
but no true reform, and it's all just a big cash cow for the big greedy
machine that just can't wait for something very bad and highly profitable to
happen to you.

MartyB

[sf]

Obamacare will not go away because the insurance industry is making
money hand over fist. On the bright side, at least there's some sort
of health care now for the people who had no insurance or crap
insurance previously. They are going to need it when the TPP is
rammed through (no thanks to Obama) and even more jobs are off-shored.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/13/order-2015-right-wing-majority-tpp-beware.html

[Pete C.]

sf wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:46:41 -0600, "Nunya Bidnits"
> <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>

> > 2. Produce free healthcare for all

The fact that Nunya or anyone believes this is even possible *anywhere*
points to the root of the problem. There is no such thing as "free",
especially in a health care context, *someone* has to pay for it.

No doctor, nurse, pharmaceutical researcher, ambulance driver or even
CNC operator machining artificial hip parts will work for free, and
health care is not possible without them. "Free health care" really
means "make someone else pay for my care", that is the reality and what
we are already seeing. I've seen it to the tune of nearly $4,000 and I
use very little health care.

[jmcquown]

On 11/14/2014 6:48 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:46:41 -0600, "Nunya Bidnits"
>> <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
>>> 2. Produce free healthcare for all
>
> The fact that Nunya or anyone believes this is even possible *anywhere*
> points to the root of the problem. There is no such thing as "free",
> especially in a health care context, *someone* has to pay for it.
>
> No doctor, nurse, pharmaceutical researcher, ambulance driver or even
> CNC operator machining artificial hip parts will work for free, and
> health care is not possible without them. "Free health care" really
> means "make someone else pay for my care",

Paid for by extremely high taxes in those countries with "free" health
care for all.

Jill

[Jeßus]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:00:37 -0500, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
between countries?

[jmcquown]

Did I say there was something wrong with it? No, I'm agreeing it isn't
free.

Jill

[Dave Smith]

On 2014-11-14 18:48, Pete C. wrote:

>
> sf wrote:

>>> 2. Produce free healthcare for all
>
> The fact that Nunya or anyone believes this is even possible *anywhere*
> points to the root of the problem. There is no such thing as "free",
> especially in a health care context, *someone* has to pay for it.
>
> No doctor, nurse, pharmaceutical researcher, ambulance driver or even
> CNC operator machining artificial hip parts will work for free, and
> health care is not possible without them. "Free health care" really
> means "make someone else pay for my care", that is the reality and what
> we are already seeing. I've seen it to the tune of nearly $4,000 and I
> use very little health care.
>

I don't think that anyone here thinks it is free. We know that we pay
for it through our nominal annual premiums and out taxes. Yet, we pay
less per per capita for healthcare than Americans pay for basic
healthcare... and we live longer. Everyone is covered and no one is
denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. I pointed out before
that when I had emergency four years ago and spend 8 days in the
hospital, four days of it in ICU, my bill was zero. Last year when I
went to the ER and go admitted and had emergency gall bladder surgery
and spent three days in there my bill was zero.

[Jeßus]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:21:20 -0500, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>

It reads that way to me, but no worries.

> No, I'm agreeing it isn't free.

For most people it isnt of course, although for some people it is in
some places.

[graham]

Just as I had spinal fusion surgery in the 70s, prostate cancer surgery
in 1997 and hernia repair 6 weeks ago. And the overall cost in Canada
for a universal system is CHEAPER than the over-priced US system, which
has a profit margin built in.
Graham

[sf]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:00:37 -0500, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
through the university level.

[Pico Rico]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:i9fd6a925uhipbocn...@4ax.com...

since you won't be paying them.

[sf]

How did you figure that out?

[Pete C.]

I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
notably lower than that in the US.

[Pete C.]

In the US, 86% of the population had health insurance and 10% had it
available but chose not to take it pre-Obamacare. The claims by those
pushing socialized health care that the US health care system was
"broken" were nothing but a lie. Yes, you can find some sad stories in
the 4% of the US population that didn't have health insurance and wanted
it, but you can find a similar percentage of sad stories in countries
with socialized health care as well.

Your bills may have been zero, but that is only because you pre-paid for
what you use and then some in the form of your very high taxes. Health
insurance also isn't the whole story, or even what's important. Here in
Texas we have the highest percentage of people without health insurance
in the US, yet for actual health outcomes which is what really matters
we are solidly in the middle of the pack of all US states. This means
that 20+ US states have more of their population insured, yet they have
worse health outcomes than the people in Texas. Clearly lack of
insurance does not equate to lack of health care in Texas.

As for what you pay per capita on health care vs. the US there are two
factors involved there. The first is that the Canadian population is in
general healthier than the US population due at least in part to
lifestyle differences like more exercise. The second reason for the
apparent discrepancy is that the true cost of your health care is being
hidden via accounting tricks to disguise the various taxes that feed
into any socialized health care system. If a true and honest accounting
was made public, your perception of the value of your "free" health care
would shift a good deal.

[Dave Smith]

On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
>> between countries?
>
> I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> notably lower than that in the US.
>

I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.

[Pete C.]

It isn't, but go on believing the false figures you are told by your
politicos who are cooking the books to hide the true cost.

Again, why you have been told about the US health care system by the
media is simply not true and never was true. Pre-Obamacare the US health
care system worked well for 96% of the US population, and the 4% who
were uninsured still had access to health care. Now only part way in to
Obamacare we are seeing massive increases in our health care costs and
massive decreases in our coverage, but those 4% are happy.

I'm an average middle class working person and Obamacare has cost me
approximately $4,000 in a single year. I've been with the same company
and had essentially the same insurance for 17 years so I have a solid
background on what things would have cost me in prior years. This year
the exact same care that cost me $25 in the prior 4 years cost me $450.

[Pete C.]

DC is not representative of the US by a long shot.

Perhaps we should say median then, the bulk of the US population has a
higher standard of living than the bulk of what I saw in the UK. Yep
there are some slums in the US just as there are in the UK, however as a
percentage of the total population our slums are much smaller. There is
also a lot of distortion in the "poverty" statistics you will see
bandied about by the media. Those statistics substantially distort rural
areas in particular since they will count people with low incomes as in
"poverty" when the reality is they live on family homesteads with no
debt and have gardens so even lower expenses so they are most certainly
not in "poverty" by any rational analysis.

[Janet B]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:09:51 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
wrote:

You ignoramus. Poverty doesn't mean you have to live in a slum.
Janet US

[notbob]

On 2014-11-15, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Paid for by extremely high taxes in those countries with "free" health
> care for all.

What!?

Fourty-four percent of my paycheck was withheld in my final working
days. That's closer to one half my paycheck than it is to one-quarter
of my paycheck. You consider that to NOT be extremely high taxes??

nb

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 11/15/2014 8:50 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>


>
> In the US, 86% of the population had health insurance and 10% had it
> available but chose not to take it pre-Obamacare. The claims by those
> pushing socialized health care that the US health care system was
> "broken" were nothing but a lie. Yes, you can find some sad stories in
> the 4% of the US population that didn't have health insurance and wanted
> it, but you can find a similar percentage of sad stories in countries
> with socialized health care as well.
>

The toughest ones are the low to middle income people that need
coverage. If they have assets, they are screwed. People that have
nothing get free medical care.

Most working people have coverage from their employer and contribute tot
he premiums and have co-pays to deal with. If you have no job and own
nothing, it is possible to get 100% coverage at no cost.

[Pete C.]

Try some reading comprehension for a change.

[Pete C.]

And what was a hefty portion of that amount? Yep, socialized health care
ala medicare pre-Obamacare, and socialist er, social security. Now add
in the costs of Obamacare and the picture is even worse.

[Pico Rico]

"Janet B" <nos...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:troe6a9pug67ljqe1...@4ax.com...

Poverty doesn't mean much at all anymore, since they keep changing the
numbers.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

[Dave Smith]

On 2014-11-14 12:03 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
>>

>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:37:28 -0800, "Pico Rico"
>> <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bruce" <Br...@Bruce.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:64cb6at4tq3emjo7g...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:19:08 -0800, The Other Guy
>>>> <Knews...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce <Br...@Bruce.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
>>>>>>>> up their own mind about using them or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, because the average consumer is smart enough to MAKE the right
>>>>> choices.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting withholding information from consumers because
>>>> they're too stupid to use it sensibly? :)
>>>
>>> that was the premise behind Obummercare.
>>>
>
>
>> and people are benefiting from finally having affordable healthcare.
>

> You mean the 4% of the US population? The 4% that is benefiting at the
> expense of the 96% of the US population who has seen huge increases in
> their costs or lost their excellent insurance entirely due to Obamacare?
> The 96% who could sign up for Obamacare to get coverage vastly inferior
> to what they previously had so that their costs are still vastly higher
> than before even if the premiums are "lower"? Just this year Obamacare
> cost me over $4,000 in premiums and health care costs that I would not
> have had in any of the prior 16 years for the exact same usage of health
> care.
>

In other words, Obamacare gave the privately run medical insurance
companies a license to screw its customers.

[Dave Smith]

On 2014-11-15 8:50 AM, Pete C. wrote:

> As for what you pay per capita on health care vs. the US there are two
> factors involved there. The first is that the Canadian population is in
> general healthier than the US population due at least in part to
> lifestyle differences like more exercise.

Maybe we are in better shape because he had better medical care.

>The second reason for the
> apparent discrepancy is that the true cost of your health care is being
> hidden via accounting tricks to disguise the various taxes that feed
> into any socialized health care system. If a true and honest accounting
> was made public, your perception of the value of your "free" health care
> would shift a good deal.

Wow. Someone has you well indoctrinated. The figures are out there for
anybody who cares to do the research but you dismiss their credibility
because you claim that the costs are being hidden.


Wow... I guess this is another of your arguments that deserves another
Yeah... whatever.
>

[Janet B]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:47:13 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>

I'm reading just fine. Your contention is that when low income people
have a house and a garden they no longer qualify for poverty status.
Your definition of poverty lacks comprehension of the reality.
Janet US

[Jeßus]

Agreed.

[Jeßus]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 08:39:19 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
wrote:

>

Regardless of your experience, that is not the case.

[graham]

A bit like that MP who claimed there was an increase in unreported crime!
Graham

[Janet]

In article <bII9w.870202$Y4.3...@fx24.iad>, auxRe...@wpnet.us
says...

> I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> notably lower than that in the US.

Whatever UK "standard of living" you encountered in the UK was limited
by your own financial/social standing.

It's highly unlikely any tourist encounters an "average" spread of the
population's living standards, in the space of a month.


Janet UK

[Janet]

In article <i9fd6a925uhipbocn...@4ax.com>, s...@geemail.com
says...

> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
> through the university level.
>

Students in UK don't receive free university education.

Janet UK

[sf]

I was thinking about Scandinavian countries. Undergraduate and PhD
programs are still free for all, regardless of nationality in Finland.

[graham]

More's the pity! I doubt that I would have gone to uni under the present
fiscal regime. Although the post-grad grants were limited, I lived quite
well, if frugally.
Graham

[graham]

On 15/11/2014 4:20 PM, Janet wrote:

But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
university for nothing couldn't you?
Graham

[Janet]

In article <RN7aw.144792$5U6....@fx01.iad>, gst...@shaw.ca says...

Personally, no, because Scottish free tuition only applies to first
degrees and I already have one.

"Free tuition" is only within Scotland so doesn't cover all study
expenses; for instance compulsory field trips and study periods abroad;
those expenses are borne by the student. In addition the student still
has to pay living expenses in Scotland for four years (accommodation
food books travel etc) So, Scottish students are not exactly "going to
university for nothing".

Janet UK

[sf]

It's still free higher education.

[Ophelia]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:7upi6a9jdre1ka17k...@4ax.com...

It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Ophelia]

"graham" <gst...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:RN7aw.144792$5U6....@fx01.iad...

> But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
> university for nothing couldn't you?

A young lassie worked with me. Her mother had died and her father was an
alkie so no money from there.

She is now a Chartered Surveyor. She had all her education paid and grants
for everything even accommodation.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[S Viemeister]

On 11/17/2014 5:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:

> It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.
>

Not _all_ foreigners - only EU nationals.

[Janet]

In article <7upi6a9jdre1ka17k...@4ax.com>, s...@geemail.com
says...

Students pay for university tuition in England Wales and Ireland.

Janet UK

[Ophelia]

"S Viemeister" <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote in message
news:ccuapf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 11/17/2014 5:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.
>>
> Not _all_ foreigners - only EU nationals.
>

I guess the English are EU nationals too?


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[S Viemeister]

On 11/17/2014 8:35 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "S Viemeister" <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote

>> On 11/17/2014 5:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.
>>>
>> Not _all_ foreigners - only EU nationals.
>>
> I guess the English are EU nationals too?
>

:)
Well, yes - but not _foreign_ EU nationals.
Had the recent referendum gone the other way, they _would_ be foreign,
and entitled to free tuition...

[Ophelia]

"S Viemeister" <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote in message

news:ccude9...@mid.individual.net...

I did say ... foreigners ...

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[sf]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:19:54 -0000, "Ophelia"
<Oph...@Elsinore.invalid> wrote:

> It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.

If it was free just to the residents of Scotland, I would still
consider it a free education. They are educating their own residents,
not the world. If the world wants a free education, then they need to
pay for it via taxes. When California's colleges were free, they were
free to California residents only, not out of state students. They
are still low cost compared to private universities. I think all
state college systems give their own residents some sort of a break in
comparison to what out of state students pay... but I could be wrong.
I have never taken the time to find out, because I don't care. I just
know it's a lot more expensive to attend an out of state school than
it is to stay within the California system.

[Ophelia]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:tv4k6a9e1pj93lrf0...@4ax.com...

Did you read what I said about the lassie that worked with me? She went
through university and paid nothing, not even for accommodation.
As you will read further on, it is free to many people outside UK, but not
the English.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[sf]

Weren't we talking about Scotland's tuition fee? Nobody said school
was a free ride.

[sf]

That can happen here too, we call it a free ride. Students have to
apply for those subsidies and they need to qualify.

[Ophelia]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:ct5k6a9ga24677gvt...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:29:45 -0000, "Ophelia"
> <Oph...@Elsinore.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "graham" <gst...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:RN7aw.144792$5U6....@fx01.iad...
>>
>> > But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
>> > university for nothing couldn't you?
>>
>> A young lassie worked with me. Her mother had died and her father was an
>> alkie so no money from there.
>>
>> She is now a Chartered Surveyor. She had all her education paid and
>> grants
>> for everything even accommodation.
>
> That can happen here too, we call it a free ride. Students have to
> apply for those subsidies and they need to qualify.

Of course, that is not in dispute. Nevertheless, the tuition itself is free
for foreign students and Scots. As I pointed out ... free for foreign
students but not the English.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[sf]

I read it, but I didn't understand it. Are you saying that a single
citizenship American can get a free ride at a Scottish university?

[sf]

That's weird.

[Ophelia]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:4gjk6a9u1l1ec89d3...@4ax.com...

:)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Ophelia]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:kdjk6ah4t8vmlfcha...@4ax.com...

No, people from the EU ie Germans, French etc can get it free.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[S Viemeister]

On 11/17/2014 2:35 PM, sf wrote:

> I read it, but I didn't understand it. Are you saying that a single
> citizenship American can get a free ride at a Scottish university?
>

Only if said US citizen had previously established full legal residence
in Scotland - not just on a limited visa.
EU citizens get free tuition (except, as Ophelia noted, citizens of the
other UK countries).
Non-resident Scots don't get free tuition.

[Bryan-TGWWW]

On Monday, November 17, 2014 1:41:12 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

> They make you pay through the weather.
>
From what I've seen, the climate change models predict that in 100 years or
so, the Gulf Stream will veer south, and Scotland will be far colder than it
is now. Global warming will lead to European cooling. The GMO folks, though
motivated primarily by greed, are helping to save future generations from starvation.

Meanwhile, the superstitious climate change deniers keep popping out babies,
trusting in their dieties to save them, no matter how badly they trash the
planet.
> --
> Bruce

--Bryan

[Janet]

In article <4gjk6a9u1l1ec89d3...@4ax.com>, s...@geemail.com
says...

It's inaccurate, as usual. Sheila was correct.

Janet UK.

[Janet]

In article <kdjk6ah4t8vmlfcha...@4ax.com>, s...@geemail.com
says...

No. Scottish and EU citizens from outside the UK, get free tuition in
Scottish universities. America is not in the EU.

Janet UK

[Pete C.]

Janet B wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:47:13 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Janet B wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:09:51 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Dave Smith wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
> >> >> >> between countries?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> >> >> > notably lower than that in the US.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
> >> >> there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
> >> >> the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
> >> >> direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
> >> >> couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
> >> >> Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
> >> >> more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
> >> >> distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
> >> >> 1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
> >> >> would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.
> >> >
> >> >DC is not representative of the US by a long shot.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps we should say median then, the bulk of the US population has a
> >> >higher standard of living than the bulk of what I saw in the UK. Yep
> >> >there are some slums in the US just as there are in the UK, however as a
> >> >percentage of the total population our slums are much smaller. There is
> >> >also a lot of distortion in the "poverty" statistics you will see
> >> >bandied about by the media. Those statistics substantially distort rural
> >> >areas in particular since they will count people with low incomes as in
> >> >"poverty" when the reality is they live on family homesteads with no
> >> >debt and have gardens so even lower expenses so they are most certainly
> >> >not in "poverty" by any rational analysis.
> >>
> >> You ignoramus. Poverty doesn't mean you have to live in a slum.
> >> Janet US
> >
> >Try some reading comprehension for a change.
>
> I'm reading just fine. Your contention is that when low income people
> have a house and a garden they no longer qualify for poverty status.
> Your definition of poverty lacks comprehension of the reality.
> Janet US

Poverty means not having what you need to live in reasonable comfort.
Not having money to pay the rent or put food on the table is poverty.
Owning a home and property with no mortgage, having all the food you
need and more to give away to friends, and yet having little money is
*not* poverty.

[Pete C.]

Janet wrote:
>
> In article <bII9w.870202$Y4.3...@fx24.iad>, auxRe...@wpnet.us
> says...

>
> > I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> > notably lower than that in the US.
>

> Whatever UK "standard of living" you encountered in the UK was limited
> by your own financial/social standing.
>
> It's highly unlikely any tourist encounters an "average" spread of the
> population's living standards, in the space of a month.
>
> Janet UK
>

Indeed, and in fact those I encountered were your upper middle class -
management and IT professionals with good jobs and pay - which further
solidifies my assessment of their standard of living vs. that of myself
and others at a comparable professional income level in the US.

[Pete C.]

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-15 8:50 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > As for what you pay per capita on health care vs. the US there are two
> > factors involved there. The first is that the Canadian population is in
> > general healthier than the US population due at least in part to
> > lifestyle differences like more exercise.
>
> Maybe we are in better shape because he had better medical care.
>
> >The second reason for the
> > apparent discrepancy is that the true cost of your health care is being
> > hidden via accounting tricks to disguise the various taxes that feed
> > into any socialized health care system. If a true and honest accounting
> > was made public, your perception of the value of your "free" health care
> > would shift a good deal.
>
> Wow. Someone has you well indoctrinated. The figures are out there for
> anybody who cares to do the research but you dismiss their credibility
> because you claim that the costs are being hidden.

Nope, someone has you well blinded. We from outside have a clearer
picture, and yes, I've been to Canada quite a bit.

[Pete C.]

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-15 8:50 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > As for what you pay per capita on health care vs. the US there are two
> > factors involved there. The first is that the Canadian population is in
> > general healthier than the US population due at least in part to
> > lifestyle differences like more exercise.
>
> Maybe we are in better shape because he had better medical care.

Nope, medical care has nothing to do with the unhealthy lifestyle of so
many in the US. Indeed a great many of the unhealthy ones are relatively
affluent and certainly have all the health care they need. As for me,
I'm healthy because I choose to eat a healthy diet and not sit watching
TV 12 hours a day. Indeed I haven't watched TV at all in 5 or 6 years
and it's amazing how much more you accomplish when you dump that crap.

[graham]

On 18/11/2014 7:41 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
Indeed I haven't watched TV at all in 5 or 6 years
> and it's amazing how much more you accomplish when you dump that crap.
>

Hmmm! Must be the only sensible statement you've made!
Graham

[Julie Bove]

"Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us> wrote in message
news:XjTaw.650994$Ub6.1...@fx20.iad...

Indeed!

[Pete C.]

lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>

> All I know is I could care less if it is creative accounting or
> whatever, but I am very thankful that if tomorrow I am seriously ill,
> the finances of it are of no concern of mine! Nobody is bankrupted
> here by medical expenses. To me, it's incredible that of all the
> benefits the USA has, healthcare is not one of them.

Don't believe the propaganda you've heard from the US media, it is *not*
reality. The reality is that prior to Obamacare 96% of the US population
were in exactly the same position, they would not be bankrupted if they
became seriously ill. They might have had a modest bill, but not an
amount that would bankrupt anyone.

All of the propaganda and sob stories the media has pushed on everyone
related to 4% of the US population. Now with Obamacare the health care
picture in the US is far worse for the majority 96%, but of course the
4% now have mediocre health insurance funded at great expense by the
96%, including the $4,000 they stole from me this year.

[Pete C.]

Bruce wrote:

> Real or perceived.

Absolutely real. The pre-Obamacare health insurance stats came from a US
government site. The $4k came from my own checking account this year.
I've been with the same company with essentially the same insurance for
16 years so I have a solid history of coverage and costs. What was a $25
co-pay last year was $400 this year. What I didn't do in previous years
was $2k+ this year and based on previous years coverages would have been
1/10th that.

In a country of some 330,000,000 people, a health care system that
worked well for 96% of the population, 316,800,000 or so people can
hardly be called "broken", yet that is exactly the propaganda that the
far left and their media cronies spewed. They bought some 13,200,000
votes with their scam, however the fallout impacting the 96% did not go
unnoticed by those 316,8000,000 voters so the left was kicked to the
curb in the recent elections and will be further decimated in the next
round of elections as even more people realize the scam that was
perpetrated on them.

[Pete C.]

lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 06:14:18 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
> wrote:
>
> >

> I judge by my cousin, her husband worked in silicone valley, had top
> medical care. She has a lump in her breast, goes to doc who tries to
> calm her down, says 'first we will wait a month and see what develops'
> - she flew back to the UK on the next flight and went to her doctor
> there. Within the week she had a mastectomy and her surgeon said it
> was a good job she did not wait a month!
>
> When back over here she queried this with the original doctor, he
> shrugged and said he had to do what the insurance company required of
> him. Now when I go to the doc I don't expect an insurance clerk to
> affect the outcome of any treatment, who is the person who went
> through medical school training ?

There are bad doctors everywhere, and while he may have tried to pass
responsibility off to the insurance company, that is *not* at all true.
The insurance companies will all tell you the correct procedure is to
call for pre-certification and do a damned biopsy immediately.