O/T: One Down
Lew Hodgett
Hello Senate.
Lew
Ed Pawlowski
"Lew Hodgett" <lewho...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:00af7610$0$32233$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.
>
> Hello Senate.
>
> Lew
Here is a 62 page "summary" of the bill
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_Section_by_Section.pdf
Mark & Juanita
As someone else put it, "Who would have thought that liberty would die
with the sound of thunderous applause?"
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
diggerop
news:FpOdnXDUOvEh2WrX...@supernews.com...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.
>>
>> Hello Senate.
>>
>> Lew
>
> As someone else put it, "Who would have thought that liberty would die
> with the sound of thunderous applause?"
>
>
>
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually, as I
saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of which were
caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable system. Both
sides of national politics now support it and have done for about the last
14 years.
Insurance companies now have no involvement. Private insurance, which I
carry, is via not for profit organisations which exist for the purpose of
providing medical benefits for their members. Private health cover entitles
me to a choice of private hospitals, choice of doctor and refunds in most
cases of any additional fees not picked up by medicare. Everyone, whether
privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost. Waiting times
are determined by the level of urgency for treatment. Privately insured
patients who have the option of treatment at private hospitals get faster
treatment than those without cover, but only on non life threatening
illnesses.
Standard of care? - I have, unfortunately, spent the last 12 months in and
out of both the private hospital system and the government hospitals.
Surprisingly, I would have to admit that the government hospitals are better
equipped and the standard of care overall is higher.
The financial disasters that I and others like me predicted have not
occurred. The system is remarkably efficient. And everyone, regardless, gets
basic care at no cost, and those of us that wish to, still get freedom of
choice.
Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I believe the
US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet Australians reportedly
live on average live 4 years longer than the average US citizen.
Got to be food for thought in that.
We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts dental
treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers part of the cost,
but disadvantaged people miss out.
diggerop
HeyBub
> The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.
>
> Hello Senate.
>
Yep. The Republicans blew it.
Immediately before the vote on the big bill, the House passed the "Stupak
Amendment." This amendment prohibited any federal funds to be used for
abortion. Without this amendment, the "Blue Dog" Democrats would not have
supported the final bill. One hundred and seventy-six Republicans voted for
the amendment and it passed.
Had that amendment failed, the bulk of the 50-odd "Blue Dogs" would have
voted against the final bill.
As a tactical matter, the pro-life Republicans should have voted in favor of
abortion that one time.
Larry Jaques
<lewho...@verizon.net> scrawled the following:
>The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.
>
>Hello Senate.
I wonder if the Senators know just how angry the majority of the
populace is over this insignificant little item. <g>
Hmm, I wonder if the local surplus shops have flak jackets...
It may get ugly in a hurry.
--
The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
And then there are all the rest of us...
-----------------------------------------------------
Larry Blanchard
> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
> opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
> denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually,
> as I saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of
> which were caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable
> system. Both sides of national politics now support it and have done for
> about the
Thanks. It's nice to hear from someone who lived through the conversion
to government health care and changed opinions as a result of facts.
That doesn't happen very often :-).
Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Axel Grease
news:W7SdnWj42tbkw2rX...@westnet.com.au...
> "Mark & Juanita" <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote in message
> news:FpOdnXDUOvEh2WrX...@supernews.com...
> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
> opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
> denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually, as
I
> saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of which were
> caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable system.
<snip>
> Everyone, whether
> privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost.
No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?
> Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I believe
the
> US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet Australians reportedly
> live on average live 4 years longer than the average US citizen.
> Got to be food for thought in that.
Many variables ae possible there.
One might be American hypocondria. In some instances, staying away from
doctors can be a healthier choice than being treated often. 99,000
Americans die every year from MRSA. Most catch it in hospitals and clinics
during treatment for other problems.
> We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts dental
> treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers part of the
cost,
> but disadvantaged people miss out.
>
> diggerop
>
Thanks for explaining the dental care situation.
How are optical care and glasses paid for?
Giving benefit of the doubt, let's presume that eye surgery is counted like
any other surgery and paid for in the publicly funded system supported by
tax money.
Axel
dpb
...
> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
> opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
> denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually,
> as I saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of
> which were caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable
> system. Both sides of national politics now support it and have done for
> about the last 14 years.
Yes, but the population of Australia is less than or roughly equivalent
to that of the three largest states in the US--CA is almost 50% the size
alone. The overall US population is almost 15X that.
Doubt seriously the success there would scale nearly as well to the US
on size and demographics.
I'd love to think whatever they end up doing will have such a miraculous
happy ending but can't see how it can possibly be w/ the cost models
they're making up to support it and the requirements on insurance companies.
--
Ed Pawlowski
"diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
> cost.
They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
who is going to pay how much?
Greg G.
In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.
Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:
FWIW,
Greg G.
Greg G.
And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091016/NEWS05/910160379/Indiana+axes+welfare+contract+with+IBM
Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
there is a lesson in there somewhere...
Greg G.
LDosser
news:1uuef5tpjefng79ou...@4ax.com...
Can you think of a reason why Australia showed up on the spreadsheet and not
on the graphs?
LDosser
Mike Marlow
"Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:tMGdnbgvH5sa-GrX...@pghconnect.com...
>
> Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!
>
Such a shame that you are so insecure as to have to lob one over the wall at
those you fear so greatly.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Mark & Juanita
> Ed Pawlowski said:
>
>>
>>"diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
>>> Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at
>>> no
>>> cost.
>>
>>They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
>>scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
>>going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
>>who is going to pay how much?
>
> In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
> police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
> plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
> consortiums... The things people need to live.
>
If you don't understand the difference between the enumerated powers,
local responsibilities, and the government takeover of private enterprise
then there is no reason to even attempt discussion on the topic.
> Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:
>
>
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/IFHP%20Comparative%20Price%20Report%20with%20AHA%20data%20addition.pdf
>
> FWIW,
>
> Greg G.
--
Rick Samuel
Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?
>
J. Clarke
> "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
> news:W7SdnWj42tbkw2rX...@westnet.com.au...
>> "Mark & Juanita" <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote in message
>> news:FpOdnXDUOvEh2WrX...@supernews.com...
>
>> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was
>> vehemently opposed to it. Saw it as government interference,
>> creeping socialism and denying freedom of choice. I held that view
>> for many years. Gradually, as I saw it get through some teething
>> troubles and changes, some of which were caused by changes of
>> government it evolved into a workable system. <snip> Everyone,
>> whether
>> privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost.
>
> No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?
>
>
>> Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I
>> believe the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet
>> Australians reportedly live on average live 4 years longer than the
>> average US citizen.
>> Got to be food for thought in that.
>
> Many variables ae possible there.
> One might be American hypocondria. In some instances, staying away
> from doctors can be a healthier choice than being treated often.
> 99,000 Americans die every year from MRSA. Most catch it in
> hospitals and clinics during treatment for other problems.
The problem with this sort of argument is that we don't know how "die" is
defined. Most countries don't count stillbirths and miscarriages as
"deaths" but they define "stillbirth" and "miscarriage" in different
ways--in some places they'll struggle mightily to save a 20 week fetus and
list it as "infant mortality" when they fail, while in other places a full
term infant that dies within an hour of birth is a "stillbirth". And
regardless of UN guidelines their statistics are based on reported deaths
and doctors in the middle of treating patients don't give a hoot in Hell
about some bureaucrat's statistical requirements.
>> We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts
>> dental treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers
>> part of the cost, but disadvantaged people miss out.
>>
>> diggerop
>>
>
> Thanks for explaining the dental care situation.
>
> How are optical care and glasses paid for?
> Giving benefit of the doubt, let's presume that eye surgery is
> counted like any other surgery and paid for in the publicly funded
> system supported by tax money.
Just a comment, but with regard to routine eye care, an eye exam in the US
costs 50 bucks and anybody can get glasses for 8 bucks, so I don't see any
need for medical insurance to pay for those.
J. Clarke
> Ed Pawlowski said:
>
>>
>> "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
>>> Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital
>>> treatment at no cost.
>>
>> They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is
>> what scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the
>> real cost is going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone
>> good health care, but who is going to pay how much?
>
> In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
> police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
> plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
> consortiums... The things people need to live.
People need NASA to live? Do tell.
The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for and
listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the government
paying for medical treatment. And schools, police, and fire departments are
not funded by the national government, nor are parks. I don't know what a
"community power consortium" is but there is certainly no Federally funded
power grid.
> Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/IFHP%20Comparative%20Price%20Report%20with%20AHA%20data%20addition.pdf
And the government paying for it is going to alter those charts in what way?
J. Clarke
Business is not designed to give away money--the failed concept is that you
can help people by giving them money without also giving them incentives to
work and the skills necessary to obtain work (which are different from the
skills necessary to _do_ work).
Lew Hodgett
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Just a comment, but with regard to routine eye care, an eye exam in
> the US
> costs 50 bucks and anybody can get glasses for 8 bucks, so I don't
> see any
> need for medical insurance to pay for those.
----------------------------------------------
Not in my neighborhood either here in SoCal or back in North East
Ohio.
$125-$150 will get you in the neighborhood.
Last pair of Eyeglasses was $500 for a pretty basic frame and
perscription trifocals.
Lew
diggerop
news:lKudnX7WvKHI6mrX...@giganews.com...
>
> "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
>> Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at
>> no cost.
>
> They converted you to a Socialist.
Heh. With respect, Ed, you have no idea. I am about as socialistic as Ghegis
Khan. I'm a free enterprise man. I am a union hating conservative voter,
suspicious of and opposed to government control (read interference,) in
most things.
Attempting to describe my political outlook from what I wrote amounts to
blind, arrogant stupidity on your part. (If that sounds a little strong to
you, I do admit to, but refuse to apologise for, an aggressive personality.)
Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that I was
vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable disaster actually
worked reasonably well (and could work better, I have no doubt,) doesn't
make me a socialist. Just smart enough to admit I'm not always right.
My greatest regret in recent years has been the defeat of the Howard
government. Had he been returned, I am convinced he would have continued to
make all spheres of public spending leaner and meaner. The current socialist
government seems hell bent on throwing public money around and spending
their inheritance from the Howard/Costello years.
>Everything has a cost. That is what scares me about the proposed system,
>we don't know what the real cost is going to be. Yes, it would be ice to
>give everyone good health care, but who is going to pay how much?
Yes indeed. It will be interesting to see what transpires.
diggerop
Greg G.
>Greg G. wrote:
>> In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
>> police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
>> plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
>> consortiums... The things people need to live.
>>
>
> If you don't understand the difference between the enumerated powers,
>local responsibilities, and the government takeover of private enterprise
>then there is no reason to even attempt discussion on the topic.
Health care should apparently not be private, at least not until greed
is removed as a component. It is a human/societal need, not a Rolex.
No different from the fire department. But to be perfectly honest, I
wouldn't trust the bastards you people elect in this county any
farther than I can toss them either. It's a no win situation either
way.
I'll be damned if I'm going to allow the government to force me to pay
a bunch of avaricious for-profit institutions of ANY sort, for any
reason. Been through this with thieving auto insurance companies and
the legions of parasites and pettifoggers who feed off that particular
mess. And if this turd of a healthcare bill passes I'm leaving. I'd
go to Canada, which has a far more equitable system that this place
but I despise cold. For me, that leaves down under. If that makes me a
socialist, then so be it.
Greg G.
Greg G.
>> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
>> opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
> Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
>special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?
Good question, and I think we all know the answer to that one...
Greg G.
diggerop
news:75GdnXj4Eclf72rX...@posted.localnet...
> "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
> news:W7SdnWj42tbkw2rX...@westnet.com.au...
>> "Mark & Juanita" <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote in message
>> news:FpOdnXDUOvEh2WrX...@supernews.com...
>
>> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
>> opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
>> denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually, as
> I
>> saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of which were
>> caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable system.
> <snip>
>> Everyone, whether
>> privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost.
>
> No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?
>
charge to the individual being treated?
Federal Government spending, is of course, funded by the taxpayer.
>
>
>> Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I believe
> the
>> US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet Australians reportedly
>> live on average live 4 years longer than the average US citizen.
>> Got to be food for thought in that.
>
> Many variables ae possible there.
> One might be American hypocondria. In some instances, staying away from
> doctors can be a healthier choice than being treated often. 99,000
> Americans die every year from MRSA. Most catch it in hospitals and
> clinics
> during treatment for other problems.
>
>
>> We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts dental
>> treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers part of the
> cost,
>> but disadvantaged people miss out.
>>
>> diggerop
>>
>
> Thanks for explaining the dental care situation.
>
> How are optical care and glasses paid for?
> Giving benefit of the doubt, let's presume that eye surgery is counted
> like
> any other surgery and paid for in the publicly funded system supported by
> tax money.
> Axel
>
I'm not well versed in the optical care side, despite wearing prescription
glasses myself. I believe those on social security incur no direct cost, -
the rest of us do. Costs don't seem very high to me, they may well be
subsidised in part by the government, but I am just guessing. In addition,
in my case, my health fund reimbursed me most of the cost.
diggerop
J. Clarke
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> Just a comment, but with regard to routine eye care, an eye exam in
>> the US
>> costs 50 bucks and anybody can get glasses for 8 bucks, so I don't
>> see any
>> need for medical insurance to pay for those.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Not in my neighborhood either here in SoCal or back in North East
> Ohio.
>
> $125-$150 will get you in the neighborhood.
Try Wal-Mart for the exam.
> Last pair of Eyeglasses was $500 for a pretty basic frame and
> perscription trifocals.
You were robbed. Give http://www.zennioptical.com a try. If they don't
work for you you haven't spent much, if they do you end up with a spare
pair. No trifocals though, bifocal or progressive. If you don't have
prescription sunglasses it might be an excuse to pick up a pair.
I found out about them when I sat on my old glasses, went down to the place
where I used to spend what you do, said "this time I'm getting those fancy
memory frames that don't break when you sit on them" and THEY DIDN'T HAVE
ANY IN STOCK. I said "screw this", searched for "glasses online", Zenni was
the first hit, I googled them and saw good feeback, ordered a pair to my
distance prescription from them for 8 bucks to see if they were for real,
they were, so I dropped a hundred on readers, sunglasses, and memory-frame
progressives. Takes two weeks to a month for delivery, haven't had a
problem so don't know what their support is like, but so far I'm quite
pleased.
I understand that the regular place might not be there later, but they
weren't there for me when I needed them anyway, so screw 'em.
diggerop
news:hd86dv$j7h$1...@news.tamu.edu...
>
> Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
> special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?
>>
>
>
Without doubt, governments on both sides of the political spectrum here are
vulnerable to the pressures of special interest groups. They all want to buy
votes, regardless of where they come from. Fortunately, the right tends to
be less affected by the loony left and bleeding hearts, of which there are a
significant number in this country. Unfortunately, we currently have a
socialist Federal government. Ain't democracy wonderful?
I have some personal experience of politics; - my grandfather was a federal
politician and government minister for many years. (He described politics as
the most dishonest profession in the world,) and at one stage I was myself
directly involved in politics. I found the lies, duplicity and self-serving
manipulation that formed a large part of the process (on both sides,) to be
something that I was too idealistic to deal with effectively.
Now I'm just an curmudgeonly old armchair critic. : )
diggerop
Greg G.
>"Greg G." <gr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:
>>>
>>>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/IFHP%20Comparative%20Price%20Report%20with%20AHA%20data%20addition.pdf
>>
>> And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
>> http://www.indystar.com/article/20091016/NEWS05/910160379/Indiana+axes+welfare+contract+with+IBM
>>
>> Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
>> there is a lesson in there somewhere...
>
>What?
That properly run, government can be as or more efficient at providing
services than private for profit industry.
Our problem is the "properly run" and efficient part...
Greg G.
Ed Pawlowski
"diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
> Attempting to describe my political outlook from what I wrote amounts to
> blind, arrogant stupidity on your part. (If that sounds a little strong to
> you, I do admit to, but refuse to apologise for, an aggressive
> personality.)
OK, let me take another guess. You have no sense of humor either. If you
can't take a little ribbing on USENET, you are rather thin skinned.
diggerop
Heh. There are certainly those who would agree with that assessment. My wife
for one.
But then, the only opinion that really matters is mine, when it's all said
and done. ; )
diggerop
Greg G.
>Greg G. wrote:
>> And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
>> http://www.indystar.com/article/20091016/NEWS05/910160379/Indiana+axes+welfare+contract+with+IBM
>>
>> Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
>> there is a lesson in there somewhere...
>
>Business is not designed to give away money--the failed concept is that you
>can help people by giving them money without also giving them incentives to
>work and the skills necessary to obtain work (which are different from the
>skills necessary to _do_ work).
Nonsense. A properly run business should be able to excel at any task
assigned - whether manufacturing or disbursement of funds and
services. If not, it should fail. In this case, IBM failed to meet the
standards of even a reputedly grossly ineffective government entity.
My point was not about welfare, but about the efficiency and
effectiveness of government vs. private enterprise. I'm not about to
defend the current state of affairs with regards to the dirt bags in
public office, nor the assortment of profiteering corporations and
their drooling stockholders who do no work at all, short of counting
their returns on investment. Simply pointing out a single recent case
where privatization didn't work - and there are plenty more.
Privatized prisons and parole services have many in law enforcement
and justice up in arms. Companies made big promises, but have utterly
failed to meet either performance objectives or efficiency goals. Most
consider the move a huge mistake. The government was considered
inefficient, but the private companies have turned out to be, as many
expected, profiteers whose primary objective was to extort money under
the color of law while providing no services in the public interest.
In other words, they proved even worse than big, bad government.
As for the welfare aspect, I don't disagree with your point. But where
are you going to employ them? Without jobs people cannot work,
without cash flow, employers cannot hire. The jobs that once provided
income to the poor and uneducated, such as textiles, steel, and much
manufacturing, have been shipped offshore. Even agriculture has been
taken over by AgriCorp and machinery. NAFTA killed off Mexican farmers
ability to profit from farming and resulted in a huge influx of
immigrant workers looking for income. So they end up being exploited
at meat packing plants and farms thereby pushing even more US citizens
out of jobs they would otherwise hate, but do to make a living.
So what do you propose the unemployed do for a living? The right
opposes abortion, and you're never going to stop people from having
sex, so the problem simply grows and grows. Nothing productive is done
on any front. All I see and hear is more rhetoric, vitriol and failed
ideology. The stupid breed en masse and the right screams, "But what
about the unborn children?" Bullshit. These morons put more thought
into breeding dogs and horses than they do bettering the human race.
Personally, if some idiot wants to speed at 110 MPH and not wear a
seat belt while talking on a freaking cell phone, I say let him. It's
Darwin in action - they are unwittingly saving us from ourselves. Kids
should be protected from ignorance, adults, not so much.
Those that have want even more, and those that have nothing harbor no
hope of extricating themselves from the miserable lives they lead. To
the newly born this is no longer the land of opportunity, but a land
of corporate fuel screws and impoverished consumers of imported crap.
Unless, of course, you are born into the aristocracy/plutocracy. Even
the few that break out of poverty through education are ultimately
saddled with debt which takes 20+ years to pay off - if then, in this
present economic situation. We can spend a real 32% of the Federal
budget on military profiteers plus another 18% on the debt from past
military spending but we shun science, education and birth control. We
then export jobs and factories en masse to a communist nation while
amassing trillion dollar trade deficits. Smart!
I suppose the short of it is, we're f'd. The US is a failure. Happy?
Greg G.
Mike Marlow
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hd8qu...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> You were robbed. Give http://www.zennioptical.com a try. If they don't
> work for you you haven't spent much, if they do you end up with a spare
> pair. No trifocals though, bifocal or progressive. If you don't have
> prescription sunglasses it might be an excuse to pick up a pair.
>
I was all set to call "bullshit" on your claim John, until I looked at the
site. Might be worth trying this site out. I've always been pissed at the
price gouging that goes on with a pair of new glasses.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
ups...@teksavvy.com
wrote:
>"diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
>Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care.
>I believe the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP.
>No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?
You quoted it yourself. It's GDP and those are taxes.Obviously he was
referring some something like noticeable monthly out of pocket
expenses. In other words, if you are a citizen buy essentially making
zero income, you can still get needed medical treatment.
ups...@teksavvy.com
>I'd love to think whatever they end up doing will have such a miraculous
>happy ending but can't see how it can possibly be w/ the cost models
>they're making up to support it and the requirements on insurance companies.
It's back to the same old question. How do you think other countries
are doing it and surviving? Granted populations sizes are going to be
different, but if you consider it to be funded by a certain portion of
GDP, then the model should operate pretty much the same way.
HeyBub
> Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I
> Australians reportedly live on average live 4 years longer than the
> average US citizen. Got to be food for thought in that.
>
More like food for further investigation. True, we spend more of GDP on
health care than most other countries. That's possibly because we can. We
probably spend more on pay-TV, eating out, earth shoes, and other
non-critical items than other countries simply because we can. Some "health
care" in the U.S. is discretionary (think breast implants - although I did
see a recent article complaining that Australia was having to import 1000cc
implants from the U.S. because of a severe in-country shortage...).
Life expectancy is also a poor metric for the efficacy of health care. For
example, most countries count severly premature infant deaths as "stillborn"
(such as France). In the U.S., Herculean efforts are expended on these
unfortunate children. Regrettably, many don't make it and skew the "life
expectancy" tables downward.
A better metric for health care may very well be life expectancy after a
diagnosis. In this category, the U.S. leads. For example, life expectancy of
five years or more after diagnosis of breast cancer is 95% in the U.S. vs.
56% in the U.K. This MAY be due to greater diagnostic capability in the U.S.
than in other places. In that regard, consider: there are more MRI machines
in my town than in all of Canada. Again, we have a greater diagnostic
infrastructure, probably, because we can afford it.
Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited to 6"
or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an Australian
stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a machine readily
available.
ups...@teksavvy.com
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>I understand that the regular place might not be there later, but
>they weren't there for me when I needed them anyway, so screw 'em.
I used to go to the same place for years and years. Every time I
replaced my glasses (about every two years), I'd see the price climb a
few notches. Though, "ok that's to be expected". Then I noticed that
as well as the prices increasing a little bit, the percentage of
increase was getting bigger too, so I started looking around at the
burgeoning proliferation of optometrists.
I'm now buying my glasses elsewhere for more than 50% less and they
come with satisfaction warranties. Replaced my most recent pair that
way. I'm seeing fine and starting a little more to shop around instead
of just going which where I've had the best service. Best service
shopping is great, but when it starts costing more than what I think
is fair, then it's time to amend my shopping methods.
Larry Jaques
<toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:
You're spot on, too, Dop. The same goes for our country Up Over. I
think that the best thing the country could do would be to go out on
the street and yank 525 folks from the general population (any person
who did -not- want to be a politician) and replace those thieving
bastards now elected to CONgress. And rather than keep them all in
D.C., which we all know is a hotbed (literally in many cases) of money
and other corruptions, convene via computer from whatever state they
hail.
Let's see, we'll outlaw lawyers, clean up the courts, fix the prisons,
legalize drugs, end the wars on drug/terror, cut the gov't ranks by
75%, concealed carry is OK for every sane person, and a lot more...
That's after I'm elected King. ;)
--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
============================================
ups...@teksavvy.com
wrote:
>OK, let me take another guess. You have no sense of humor either. If you
>can't take a little ribbing on USENET, you are rather thin skinned.
Hell Ed. You've got to admit that accusing any number of Americans as
being socialist in nature is tantamount to committing a declaration of
war, even if you were ribbing them. To some people, the word is a
volatile, disgusting tool of the damned. There's no room for humour
there. Diggerop may not be American, but he might harbor some of those
same feelings about socialism.
Larry Jaques
<lewho...@verizon.net> scrawled the following:
I got 3 pairs for just under $600 the last time I saw an opto. 1
single vision reading, one bifocal computer, and one bifocal full time
wear.
BUT, had I gone to WalMart's opto center, it would have cost $50 for
the exam, $8-40 for each frame, and I think $20 a pop for lenses.
Middle of the road would have been $170, a much better deal. But the
first one was done via my barter club, so I used up saved barter bucks
instead of my cash. It was worth it at the time, but I may go to Wally
World on the next visit.
I think that if the gov't is going to get into the insurance
profession, it should have its own medical staff and hospitals so it
can control costs and eliminate the speaking weasels (attorneys) who
have priced doctors out of our reach. Free (or $5) clinics, like we
used to have in CA in the '80s, would eliminate a majority of hospital
visits. The gov't could pay medical school costs and housing for
doctors and nurses who would work for the system for a certain amount
of years. That has to be cheaper (by 80%?) than what we have now.
--
The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
And then there are all the rest of us...
-----------------------------------------------------
ups...@teksavvy.com
wrote:
>Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited to 6"
>or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an Australian
>stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a machine readily
>available.
Not sure what your point is about the MRI machine, but again, it could
only be because they can afford it. If it's for saving life, then more
people would be saved by donating that MRI machine to some local
medical clinic. Naturally the question then becomes, who has the
greatest right to life ~ the football player or the pregnant mother
who has recently experienced a car accident. Yes, there's certainly
more money involved with the football player, but there' also more
humanity involved with the pregnant mother. Unfortunately, "humanity"
doesn't count for much, at least not as much as hoped.
Larry Jaques
<mmarlo...@windstream.net> scrawled the following:
I got my first pair of computer glasses from them and they worked well
until the frame fell apart. The screw was stripped. It took 2 weeks to
get an email reply, but I got a new frame from them, free. They had
one in another color in SF so I accepted that vs waiting for an Asian
shipment.
I understand that they do better now and I may buy my frame there (vs
Wally) now that they have a much larger selection. I think my medium
focal length computer glasses might be better for me in the shop than
my fulltimes so I'll try 'em when I get enough junk taken back out of
the shop to work in there again. I have a couch to build! (bringing
it back on topic. ;)
diggerop
news:6c-dnb9Uma3LhWXX...@earthlink.com...
> diggerop wrote:
>> Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I
>> believe the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet
>> Australians reportedly live on average live 4 years longer than the
>> average US citizen. Got to be food for thought in that.
>>
>
> More like food for further investigation. True, we spend more of GDP on
> health care than most other countries. That's possibly because we can. We
> probably spend more on pay-TV, eating out, earth shoes, and other
> non-critical items than other countries simply because we can. Some
> "health care" in the U.S. is discretionary (think breast implants -
> although I did see a recent article complaining that Australia was having
> to import 1000cc implants from the U.S. because of a severe in-country
> shortage...).
>
> Life expectancy is also a poor metric for the efficacy of health care. For
> example, most countries count severly premature infant deaths as
> "stillborn" (such as France). In the U.S., Herculean efforts are expended
> on these unfortunate children. Regrettably, many don't make it and skew
> the "life expectancy" tables downward.
>
I'm not sure why I bother, however; -Think about what you are saying. If
there are sufficient premature infant deaths to skew life expectancy results
for a nation the size of the US, then your standards of medical care,
(despite the herculean efforts you alluded to,) must rank as some of the
most appalling and inept in the world.
> A better metric for health care may very well be life expectancy after a
> diagnosis. In this category, the U.S. leads. For example, life expectancy
> of five years or more after diagnosis of breast cancer is 95% in the U.S.
> vs. 56% in the U.K. This MAY be due to greater diagnostic capability in
> the U.S. than in other places. In that regard, consider: there are more
> MRI machines in my town than in all of Canada. Again, we have a greater
> diagnostic infrastructure, probably, because we can afford it.
You posted the same grossly out of date statistics on breast cancer in
another thread some time ago. I refuted them then and gave you cites. It's
interesting to me that you and I probably have the same political leanings,
however, your propensity to post out of date, unsubstantiated, ill thought
out rubbish simply makes you an easy target for the left. ..... I'm
beginning to feel sorry for you, and that can't be good.
>
> Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited to
> 6" or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an Australian
> stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a machine readily
> available.
>
Six inches? ......... That's not a knife! : )
diggerop
Larry Jaques
<toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:
>"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
Truth! There's a saying in AA which goes "What you think of me is
none of my business." I like it.
So, what state do you live in down there, other than "of denial"? You
a sandgroper, a Taswegian, a banana bender, or what?
--A fellow curmudgeon
diggerop
news:9b7gf5l6b13dhgaj4...@4ax.com...
Heh. Now if he'd labeled me a thief or murderer, shyster or philanderer,
(something with redeemable qualities,) I'd maybe have let it pass.
But a *Socialist*? Dagnabbit man, that's the lowest form of life on the
planet. ; )
diggerop
diggerop
news:kj9gf59lvslv9pf1c...@4ax.com...
> none of my business." I like it.
>
> So, what state do you live in down there, other than "of denial"? You
> a sandgroper, a Taswegian, a banana bender, or what?
>
> --A fellow curmudgeon
>
> --
> The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
> The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
> And then there are all the rest of us...
> -----------------------------------------------------
Sandgroper. Born and bred. ...... and proud of it : )
diggerop
Doug Winterburn
CW
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only do
plastic lenses. Leaves me out.
dpb
Not necessarily at all. Demographics aren't at all the same, either, as
well as just numbers.
And, not all these other countries are doing so well, either; or their
systems aren't all functioning as well as might be hoped. Recall GB
some years ago when they went bust? Japan has been in almost 20 year
stagnant at best, France is beset w/ strikes and all sorts of troubles
simmering just under the surface...
And, of course, the US "plan" being proposed isn't one of those anyway,
it's a hodgepodge of stuff and includes a significant fraction of the
supposed cost for the new stuff to come by reducing current expenditures
for Medicare which is some trillions upside down already and has
difficulty getting providers to accept patients for the present
remuneration what more w/ further reductions.
No, I don't see much (as in any) hope of what's being proposed having
any success at all in accomplishing what's being promised it will do. I
do see it creating another humongeous federal bureaucracy and and
bottomless sink for revenue.
I can see some reforms/modifications of systems but these folks running
the show at the moment can't seem to see anything but that it's the
government's job to do everything for everybody whether they want it or
not or whether there's any way to pay for it or not.
And we've not even started to see the impacts of what Cap'n Trade is
going to do to destroy what little competitive position w/ have left in
global marketplace if it goes. If folks think employment situation is
tough now, wait'll manufacturers' input energy costs double or so while
rest of worlds' don't change significantly and see how that works out.
--
Larry Blanchard
> "Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:tMGdnbgvH5sa-GrX...@pghconnect.com...
>
>
>> Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!
>>
>>
> Such a shame that you are so insecure as to have to lob one over the
> wall at those you fear so greatly.
You're funny :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
diggerop
King Larry ........ has a certain panache ........ : )
I miss the old style of politician, who got things done without all the hand
wringing, indecision and obfuscation that seems to be a hallmark of today's
lot. Some of them can't decide what to wear in the morning without running
an opinion poll.
The sort I would like to see again were the likes of Sir Charles Court, WA
premier and a wily and skillful leader who ruled with an iron fist. Wasn't
always popular, rode roughshod over some things, seldom backed down. The
electorate gave him 9 years in office. Chiefly I believe, because we knew
what to expect from him and he got things done. Even those who were
politically opposed to him had a form of trust in his actions and abilities.
One who best typifies my attitude to getting on with things, was NSW premier
Sir Robert Askin.
Your president, LBJ was on a state visit to NSW in 1966 when a group of
anti-vietnam war protesters laid down in the roadway and halted the
motorcade. Sir Robert was famously reported as having leaned over to the
police officer controlling the escort and saying "Run the bastards over."
Doubt there's too many today with the courage to voice that aloud, even if
they thought it.
1966 ........ damn ....... I really am getting old : )
diggerop
Larry Blanchard
> You're spot on, too, Dop. The same goes for our country Up Over. I think
> that the best thing the country could do would be to go out on the
> street and yank 525 folks from the general population (any person who
> did -not- want to be a politician) and replace those thieving bastards
> now elected to CONgress.
I've often suggested drawing two or three names for each position and
giving them 30 days to explain their views - then hold the election.
J. Clarke
I'm curious--why does it leave you out?
CW
CW
> CW wrote:
>> Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only do
>> plastic lenses. Leaves me out.
>
> I'm curious--why does it leave you out?
Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of plastic
lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.
DGDevin
> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was
> vehemently opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping
> socialism and denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many
> years. Gradually, as I saw it get through some teething troubles and
> changes, some of which were caused by changes of government it
> evolved into a workable system. Both sides of national politics now
> support it and have done for about the last 14 years.
[snip]
Interesting post. Much of the world seems to have been able to make
"socialized"� medicine work with varying degrees of success, one measure of
that being that the citizens of many nations live longer than Americans
while their governments spend less per capita on health care. But in
America a powerful lobby protects the profits of the health care industry,
that's why Americans pay more and often get less--the administrative
overhead of health insurance companies consumes 20% of what Americans pay
for insurance. I don't know what portion of the current reform legislation
will survive to become law, I suspect just reigning in the worst abuses of
the insurance companies might be all we get. So long as members of Congress
are taking millions in campaign donations from the health care industry I'm
dubious as to how much real reform we'll see.
�"Socialized" in this context means anything that puts people's health ahead
of the profits of health care corporations.
DGDevin
I stuck with glass lenses until quite recently, but I've used plastic lenses
the past few years and they've been fine. I clean the lenses only under
running water and so far scratches haven't been a problem. I certainly like
how much lighter glasses with plastic lenses are.
DGDevin
> The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for
> and listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the
> government paying for medical treatment.
There are a lot of things we take for granted that aren't mentioned in the
Constitution, yet it might be awkward to do away with all of them.
> And schools, police, and
> fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
> parks.
Say what?
> I don't know what a "community power consortium" is but there
> is certainly no Federally funded power grid.
Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those paid by
foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the federal govt. take a
more active interest in that industry.
DGDevin
> Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that
> I was vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable
> disaster actually worked reasonably well (and could work better, I
> have no doubt,) doesn't make me a socialist. Just smart enough to
> admit I'm not always right.
Well said. Unfortunately a great many Americans (on the left and the right)
take an entrenched tribal view of things, and either you stick to their
party line all the way, or you're a heretic.
DGDevin
> Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited
> to 6" or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an
> Australian stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a
> machine readily available.
That America can afford to waste more money on health care than other
nations doesn't alter the fact that a great deal of that expenditure is
indeed wasted. That pro sports teams can afford MRI machines while many
millions of Americans can't get basic health care is also not something to
be proud of.
DGDevin
> Six inches? ......... That's not a knife! : )
>
> diggerop
Heh, a great scene.
Tim Daneliuk
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:49 +0800, diggerop wrote:
>
>> When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
>> opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
>> denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually,
>> as I saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of
>> which were caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable
>> system. Both sides of national politics now support it and have done for
>> about the
>
> to government health care and changed opinions as a result of facts.
> That doesn't happen very often :-).
>
> Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!
>
As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
with both hands on your shoulders...
DGDevin
>> The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.
>>
>> Hello Senate.
>
> I wonder if the Senators know just how angry the majority of the
> populace is over this insignificant little item. <g>
>
> Hmm, I wonder if the local surplus shops have flak jackets...
> It may get ugly in a hurry.
I wonder if the angry minority knows it is indeed a minority? I also wonder
why so many of them are so quick to think of violence as being a legitimate
response to the reality that election results have consequences?
Greg G.
Wasn't it!
Pretty good movie back in the day.
Greg G.
keit...@gmail.com
> CW wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote in message
The DOs I've gone to have done everything but refuse to prescribe
glass lenses for me. I raised objections to plastic because I don't
treat glasses well, but was told not think about glass lenses as
safety glasses. They've both told me that I'd be far better off with
the scratch resistant coatings. The manufacturers will replace them
if scratched (SWMBO has had hers replaced in the last couple of months
- dropped them on the driveway). The pair I use for working around
the house is two years old and is now pretty badly scratched. My
every day set is OK after a year. I plan on replacing the lenses in
my "work" set the next time I go in. I like the frames better anyway.
My first DO told me the best cleaning solution was water and dish
detergent - the dollar store variety. Hand soaps and some ritzy dish
detergents have skin conditioners in them that will smear on the
lenses.
I looked at the site posted earlier but didn't see anything like what
I have. My lenses are pretty large (58mmx48mm) to accommodate large
computer displays (CAD) without turning my head. I use bifocals set
for medium distance on top (18" or so) and reading (~12") on the
bottom. I don't need glasses for distance but do work on a computer
~12 hours a day.
Greg G.
I've noticed that. Perhaps it's something to do with that Us vs. Them
mentality that becomes entrenched from exposure to high school
football competition. One reason I've always liked the physical
sciences - irrefutable, reproducible, fact based truths. Mostly...
Greg G.
Tim Daneliuk
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for
>> and listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the
>> government paying for medical treatment.
>
> There are a lot of things we take for granted that aren't mentioned in the
> Constitution, yet it might be awkward to do away with all of them.
But it would be healthy to do so. And you're right - the sheeple have
been dulled and have themselves requested a form of government that
they "take for granted" so long as their own various oxen are not
gored. Then one day, when the economy is on the skids, unemployment
has skyrocketed, and the various government bodies broke, the sheeple
finally wake up in complete alarm only to demand more gasoline on
their foolish fire: More government.
>
>> And schools, police, and
>> fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
>> parks.
>
> Say what?
Fire, police, etc. are ordinarily funded at the state/local/city level.
The snoopy Feds have inserted themselves there was well of late all
in the name of "I'm from Washington D.C. and here to help you."
Local parks are locally funded. Federal parks are Federally funded.
Oh, and some of the worst land abuses ever seen in this last century
were on Federally owned/"managed" lands, because government is so very
good at doing things like this.
>
>> I don't know what a "community power consortium" is but there
>> is certainly no Federally funded power grid.
>
> Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
> protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those paid by
> foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the federal govt. take a
> more active interest in that industry.
That's hilarious. Let's do a simple examination of some facts - you are,
as always, free to your own opinions, but not your own facts:
- "The power companies" for many years enjoyed a no-compete monopoly
courtesy of ... wait for it ... the government. During this time
these same companies did a lousy job of forward investment in transmission
lines, and distribution infrastructure, and only a mediocre job of
power generation infrastructure. For instance, they routinely estimated
new nuke facilites at $3B that actually came in at nearly twice that, and
then used their government monopoly status to jack up rates. It was GOVERNMENT
that made this foolishness possible. The government's own generation sites
like the TVA aren't much better (if at all) and have been a morass of
politics, inefficiency, and incompetence.
- There are considerably more successful hacking attacks on government and DOD
facilities than there are power gen facilities. In part, of course, this is
because there are so many more government/DOD targets. But, if you think that
the federal government taking a "more active interest" in securing the power
infrastructure is going to make things better, think again.
- Outside the very narrow world of secure military and intelligence
systems, the Federal IT infrastructure is itself a mess having been
conceived by bureaucrats and executed by something worse than union labor.
That's why Federal CIOs change with the season. No one can cope with the
unholy mess that results from a marriage of politics, bureaucracy, an
unfirable workforce, and and incoherent and overlapping set of fiefdoms.
A few years ago I gave a talk at a conference of Federal CIOs. The single
thing they were most proud of as a group was that they had managed to
outsource some of their mess to private industry. That in itself speaks
volumes.
At this point, I doubt *anyone* knows what to do about these large
scale infrastructure issues. Most of the self-stimulation money set
aside for this appears to be more oriented to paying off political
favors to the various special interests and unions that supported the
current administration's ascension to power. The 30 or so years we
spent listening to the scientific illiterates parade against nuke
power means that we've lost a lot of expertise in the area and have
graduated precious few nuke engineers. Now the same bunch of scientific
illiterates have decided that the answer to our power problems is
wind and solar - which together won't make much of dent even if they
do end up working as claimed AND it still doesn't address the distribution
problem. And all of this ... every bit of it ... has taken place under
either direct Federal regulation or, at the very least, strong Federal
"interest" in the matter.
Yeah... the thought of the Feds doing this should give us great comfort ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Greg G.
Indeed.
I have another interesting question: (to me, anyway)
If everyone who currently pays for health care insurance - directly or
indirectly - were assured that for the same money they could cover
everyone in the country with the same or improved levels of health
care, would they still be opposed to a Canadian/Aussie type health
care system? Or is that simply too much socialism for their psyches
to absorb?
Greg G.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
> Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
> special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?
I read this to mean - or that you are implying at least - that our
government is controlled not directly by the people, but by special
interest groups. Care to guess what the single biggest and most
influencial lobbying organization in Washington D.C. is?
Hint - It is NOT:
- The Financial Industry
- The Insurance Industry
- The Energy Industry
- The Manufacturing Industry
- The Medical Industry
- The Legal Industry
- The Military/Aerospace Industry
IOW - it is none of the usual suspects that everyone gets all exercised
about. It is not the big eeeeeeeeeevil corporations or foreign governments,
or any of the boogeymen you hear blamed for all our ills.
In fact, the largest and most influential lobby in the US is ...
<the envelope please>:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_largest_lobbying_group_in_US
They don't necessarily spend the most amount of money, but the sheer
size of the AARP makes them the most influencial lobby in D.C. What they
don't spend in money, they sell in votes. It's also why you'll never
see real healthcare reform. In the words of a sign seen recently
at an anti-reform rally: "Don't replace Medicare with Socialism."
(Apparently without any sense of the irony / stupidity / irrationality
of said statement.)
So, don't blame the capitalists, the bankers, the lawyers, the influence
peddlers, the agents of foreign governments, or the evil geniuses in
the military-industrial complex. Blame grandma ...
Tim Daneliuk
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:25:40 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited to 6"
>> or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an Australian
>> stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a machine readily
>> available.
>
> only be because they can afford it. If it's for saving life, then more
> people would be saved by donating that MRI machine to some local
> medical clinic. Naturally the question then becomes, who has the
Repeat after me: "From each according to their ability to each according
to their need." This worked really, really, really well in the past
hundred years. It's good to see people continuing to defend it.
> greatest right to life ~ the football player or the pregnant mother
Ohhhh, I'm all gooey inside. We get to *vote* on who has the
"greatest right to life". No doubt you'll be chairing the committee?
> who has recently experienced a car accident. Yes, there's certainly
> more money involved with the football player, but there' also more
> humanity involved with the pregnant mother. Unfortunately, "humanity"
> doesn't count for much, at least not as much as hoped.
Translation: "I will decide just who- and who is not worthy of living."
I saw this movie somewhere before, or at least read about it a history
book. It involved starvation, suffering, misery, death, genocide,
and wholesale slaughter. It's good to know that these things always
remain in fashion among the self-anointed saviors of mankind and their
stooges ...
Tim Daneliuk
Just what percentage of the US GDP was expended on best-in-class
medical care *before* the government decided to make Medicare/aid a
"right" and "guarantee" coverage?
Or if you prefer:
What does a given procedure cost when you tell your provider,
"I have no insurance, I will be paying cash"? How does this
cost compare to what your insurance provider pays? How does
that cost compare to what Medicare/aid pays?
>
> �"Socialized" in this context means anything that puts people's health ahead
> of the profits of health care corporations.
And if profit is minimized or dismissed, where shall the resources for
research and delivery come from? What will attract the brightest minds
to bleeding-edge medical research? Who's going to bother capitalizing
the estimated $1B it takes to get a new wonder drug to market? Shall
we all just become slaves to the state and let the political oligarchs
run everything?
Oh, and one other thing. If the US succumbs to the phony pleasures of
socialized medicine, what's the rest of the world going to do? With
our government in control of all things medical, capping prices, and
limiting delivery to those sufficiently worthy (as determined by the
health czar), the implicit subsidies to medical technology and drugs
will disappear. The rest of the planet isn't going to get drugs and
technology at a discount because the "rich Americans" will not longer
be paying the premium for them. Notwithstanding my contempt for
collectivism in all its forms, it would be sweet to watch the infernal
finger waggers around the world have to actually pay the real price
for their leading edge medicine for a change....
Tim Daneliuk
Here's a parallel question:
If you were assured that all your needs: Food, shelter, clothing,
medicine, love, sex, and perpetual happiness were guaranteed, would
you give up your liberty? Because that's more-or-less what the ruling
class wanabees ALWAYS promise (and never deliver) in order to become
the ruling class. The healthcare business is just another sideshow in
that circus.
ups...@teksavvy.com
wrote:
>> Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
>> plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.
>
>I stuck with glass lenses until quite recently, but I've used plastic lenses
>the past few years and they've been fine. I clean the lenses only under
>running water and so far scratches haven't been a problem. I certainly like
>how much lighter glasses with plastic lenses are.
I had the same problem too, insisting on glass lenses every time until
about two years back. The glass ones eventually started taking several
weeks to be ordered in ~ that's if they were available at all. Then a
plastic lens set I bought and usually cleaned with my shirtsleeve got
permanently scratched within 6 months of use.
Now when I buy plastic lensed glasses, the first option I insist on is
that they be the most scratch resistant possible. That usually means
there's an extra option box to be checked, but at least they don't
scratch when using my sleeve to clean and make it look like I'm
looking at a foggy day out.
The added bonus is that they're extremely light and not subject to
breaking or chipping when the get accidentally dropped to the floor.
ups...@teksavvy.com
<tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
>with both hands on your shoulders...
Let's hope those hands on your shoulder have enough sense to push you
in front a bus. Reading your whining and complaining ad nauseam is
enough to make everyone else jump in front of bus and I sure as hell
don't want to be the only one left while you're around.
ups...@teksavvy.com
<tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>I saw this movie somewhere before, or at least read about it a history
>book. It involved starvation, suffering, misery, death, genocide,
>and wholesale slaughter. It's good to know that these things always
>remain in fashion among the self-anointed saviors of mankind and their
>stooges ...
As usual, the mindless blathering of someone who is *only* concerned
is what benefits him.
Go whine somewhere else.
Lew Hodgett
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Try Wal-Mart for the exam.
They don't pass muster.
Have used the services of an opthamologist for many years and Wal-Mart
doesn't have any on staff.
At this point in my life don't plan on changing.
> You were robbed. Give http://www.zennioptical.com a try. If they
> don't
> work for you you haven't spent much, if they do you end up with a
> spare
> pair. No trifocals though, bifocal or progressive. If you don't
> have
> prescription sunglasses it might be an excuse to pick up a pair.
Maybe so, but I fit the 20%, not the 80% of the market.
Have a very difficult face to fit and also require a large lens to
look right on my face.
As a result, wear RayBan type aviator frame which requires an oversize
blank.
Have worn a photo gray lens for year which negates the requirement for
sun glasses, but does require glass lens and Corning is the only game
in town.
Require frequent adjustment of frame, thus local support is required.
For those who fit the 80% market share, on line may be a good deal.
For those of us in the 20% market share, not so much.
Lew
Lew Hodgett
> Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
> plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.
You mean you get 6 hours?
You're better than me.
Lew
Larry Blanchard
>> And schools, police, and
>> fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
>> parks.
>
> Say what?
I caught that one too, but figured if he didn't know the percentage of
local budgets that come from federal grants, it was a waste of time
trying to educate him.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Tim Daneliuk
Comrade Marx called - he wants his ideology back.
Larry Jaques
<toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:kj9gf59lvslv9pf1c...@4ax.com...
>> none of my business." I like it.
>>
>> So, what state do you live in down there, other than "of denial"? You
>> a sandgroper, a Taswegian, a banana bender, or what?
>>
>> --A fellow curmudgeon
>
>Sandgroper. Born and bred. ...... and proud of it : )
A proud Sandgroper, eh? Will wonders never cease. <gd&r>
Say "Hullo" to Phully Laird for me if you get through Nannup. Damn,
it's been 7 years now...I wonder if he'll remember me...if the grog
ain't got him yet. He slid down from Perth a while back.
Well, he looks to be alive, anywho. Egad, tell him he needs a new web
guy. 256 color gifs, EEK! http://www.nannupfurnituregallery.com.au/
--
The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
And then there are all the rest of us...
-----------------------------------------------------
DGDevin
>> There are a lot of things we take for granted that aren't mentioned
>> in the Constitution, yet it might be awkward to do away with all of
>> them.
>
> But it would be healthy to do so. And you're right - the sheeple have
> been dulled and have themselves requested a form of government that
> they "take for granted" so long as their own various oxen are not
> gored. Then one day, when the economy is on the skids, unemployment
> has skyrocketed, and the various government bodies broke, the sheeple
> finally wake up in complete alarm only to demand more gasoline on
> their foolish fire: More government.
A reliable recognition sign for a certain sort of Usenet character is his
use of the word "sheeple." People who are convinced *they* are so much
better informed (and of course smarter) than pretty much everyone else are
usually neither.
Some of the folks who wrote the Constitution anticipated and even
recommended its occasional overhaul--why it's almost as if they knew that
circumstances they could not have foreseen would arise. And yet there are
those today who apparently would have been happier in the late 18th century,
if only there were a way to send them back.
>>> And schools, police, and
>>> fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
>>> parks.
>>
>> Say what?
>
> Fire, police, etc. are ordinarily funded at the state/local/city
> level.
Tell your local govt. you don't want them taking any more federal money for
things like education or law enforcement and see what their reaction is.
>> Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
>> protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those
>> paid by foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the
>> federal govt. take a more active interest in that industry.
>
> That's hilarious.
No, it isn't. Given the opportunity to harden their system against such
threats the power companies have done almost nothing, and they are painfully
vulnerable to cyber attacks.
> Let's do a simple examination of some facts -
That would be a refreshing change of pace for you. Alas, the spew that
followed had little to do with what I posted, and as always it is seen
through the lens of your "libertarian" paranoia. I don't know why you even
pretend you're answering what other people post, you're so much happier just
waving your placard and yelling your chant, and you hardly need to involve
other people to do that.
DGDevin
>>> And schools, police, and
>>> fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
>>> parks.
>>
>> Say what?
>
> I caught that one too, but figured if he didn't know the percentage of
> local budgets that come from federal grants, it was a waste of time
> trying to educate him.
Some of the folks I know in law enforcement would spit out their teeth at
the thought of no more federal money, they'd be sunk without it.
evodawg
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:52:41 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
>>As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
>>with both hands on your shoulders...
>
> Let's hope those hands on your shoulder have enough sense to push you
> in front a bus. Reading your whining and complaining ad nauseam is
> enough to make
> everyone else <----------------------
> jump in front of bus and I sure as hell
> don't want to be the only one left while you're around.
Really think you need to speak for yourself. Your GENERALIZATIONS are
becoming a bit much! But nice try....
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
diggerop
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:38:05 +0800, the infamous "diggerop"
> <toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:kj9gf59lvslv9pf1c...@4ax.com...
>>> none of my business." I like it.
>>>
>>> So, what state do you live in down there, other than "of denial"? You
>>> a sandgroper, a Taswegian, a banana bender, or what?
>>>
>>> --A fellow curmudgeon
>>
>>Sandgroper. Born and bred. ...... and proud of it : )
>
> A proud Sandgroper, eh? Will wonders never cease. <gd&r>
>
Ten foot tall and bulletproof, too : )
> Say "Hullo" to Phully Laird for me if you get through Nannup. Damn,
> it's been 7 years now...I wonder if he'll remember me...if the grog
> ain't got him yet. He slid down from Perth a while back.
>
> Well, he looks to be alive, anywho. Egad, tell him he needs a new web
> guy. 256 color gifs, EEK! http://www.nannupfurnituregallery.com.au/
>
>
Nannup, - that would make a nice leisurely weekend bike run. Haven't been
down that way for many years. ....... got me thinking, summertime, not too
hot yet ....... hmmm.
I'll be sure to let you know if I make the run.
diggerop
ups...@teksavvy.com
<tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
>Comrade Marx called - he wants his ideology back.
If you think by emailing me privately, you're going to get me to stop
commenting about your crap, then you must be dumber than pig spit.
Do it again and you can expect a shit storm to come your way.
Lew Hodgett
"DGDevin" wrote:
> Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
> protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those
> paid by foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the
> federal govt. take a more active interest in that industry.
Catch 60 Minutes last night?
The utility problem is known and under scrutiny by Congress at this
time.
Lew
J. Clarke
Geez, what do you folks do to the poor things? My polycarbonate Wileys have
lasted me three years now on a motorcycle.
CW
"Lew Hodgett" <sail...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:00f1ab64$0$23392$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
HeyBub
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:25:40 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are
>> limited to 6" or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at
>> an Australian stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a
>> machine readily available.
>
> Not sure what your point is about the MRI machine, but again, it could
> only be because they can afford it. If it's for saving life, then more
> people would be saved by donating that MRI machine to some local
> medical clinic.
It's not for saving a life - it's for diagnosing an injury (that may be life
saving). I suspect that MRI machines at football stadiums are virtually
never used (maybe once a year?). The people who own the MRI machine don't
WANT to donate it to the community health center. They use it (possibly) to
protect their players which makes more money for the owners which allows
them to donate to worthy causes far in excess of one MRI machine. The poor
can't even take care of themselves, let alone contribute to the well-being
of others.
> Naturally the question then becomes, who has the
> greatest right to life ~ the football player or the pregnant mother
> who has recently experienced a car accident.
Arguing from a false premise. Every mandated right implies a duty on the
part of someone else. If the pregnant mother had a "right" of any kind, a
duty is simultaneously imposed on others. Inasmuch as we reject the imposed
duty, if follows she has no "right" to life - or anything else - at our
expense.
> Yes, there's certainly
> more money involved with the football player, but there' also more
> humanity involved with the pregnant mother. Unfortunately, "humanity"
> doesn't count for much, at least not as much as hoped.
This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.
Some people just need to keep up.
Ed Pawlowski
"CW" <cmagers@earthlink...net> wrote in message
>
> Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
> plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.
>
I guess it depends on how you use them. I've been wearing plastic for years
and the light weight makes quite a difference with my prescription. I get
the high index too.
The problem with Two Pairs is the distance. About a 150 mile drive each way
so that add quite a bit to the cost. Two trips needed. My requirements don't
fit the "in about an hour" deal some places have.
Ed Pawlowski
> blank.
>
> Have worn a photo gray lens for year which negates the requirement for sun
> glasses, but does require glass lens and Corning is the only game in
> town.
>
Is the glass because of the oversize requirement? Photo gray plastic is
readily available. I've been wearing Transitions for many years and like
the freedom from swapping to sunglasses.
ups...@teksavvy.com
wrote:
>This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
>"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
>which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
>condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.
Lots of "hash" is and has been postulated through the ages. Doesn't
mean it counts for much. And that "invisible hand) works at glacial
speed at best which takes generations to have any noticeable effect.
What if the MRI money was instead invested in education for that
pregnant mother. Within half a generation a really noticeable effect
is seen. She brings up a family, ensures decent education to all her
children who are grown and have families of their own who will likely
succeed tremendously. And, how many families could benefit from
education money derived from the sale of that one MRI machine.
Hundreds!
However you want to mandate it, MRI machines are just a way companies
ensure some of their profit making practices bear fruit. Nothing else
and certainly not as a means so athletes stay healthy enough to
volunteer and change the landscape of charity. They're strictly there
to protect athletes and have extremely little trickle down effect to
volunteering.
You've been smoking something too much.
Doug Winterburn
somehow taking away education for hundreds of pregnant mothers and
dooming them to dismal futures. Life isn't a zero sum game.
Larry Jaques
<cmagers@earthlink...net> scrawled the following:
>
>"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:hd8qu...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just a comment, but with regard to routine eye care, an eye exam in
>>>> the US
>>>> costs 50 bucks and anybody can get glasses for 8 bucks, so I don't
>>>> see any
>>>> need for medical insurance to pay for those.
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Not in my neighborhood either here in SoCal or back in North East
>>> Ohio.
>>>
>>> $125-$150 will get you in the neighborhood.
>>
>> Try Wal-Mart for the exam.
>>
>>> Last pair of Eyeglasses was $500 for a pretty basic frame and
>>> perscription trifocals.
>>
>> You were robbed. Give http://www.zennioptical.com a try. If they don't
>> work for you you haven't spent much, if they do you end up with a spare
>> pair. No trifocals though, bifocal or progressive. If you don't have
>> prescription sunglasses it might be an excuse to pick up a pair.
>>
>> I found out about them when I sat on my old glasses, went down to the
>> place
>> where I used to spend what you do, said "this time I'm getting those fancy
>> memory frames that don't break when you sit on them" and THEY DIDN'T HAVE
>> ANY IN STOCK. I said "screw this", searched for "glasses online", Zenni
>> was
>> the first hit, I googled them and saw good feeback, ordered a pair to my
>> distance prescription from them for 8 bucks to see if they were for real,
>> they were, so I dropped a hundred on readers, sunglasses, and memory-frame
>> progressives. Takes two weeks to a month for delivery, haven't had a
>> problem so don't know what their support is like, but so far I'm quite
>> pleased.
>>
>> I understand that the regular place might not be there later, but they
>> weren't there for me when I needed them anyway, so screw 'em.
>>
>
>Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only do
>plastic lenses. Leaves me out.
A closer look at Zenni showed that they use mainly polycarbonate. I
don't like it because it has more distortion than other plastics. But
if you want real distortion, try a pair of progressive lenses. OMG!
80% of them isn't even prescription lens, and the transitions left me
dizzy and sick to my stomach. I forced my opto's office managerette to
put me into bifocals and a pair of single vision readers. She wouldn't
even let me pay the extra for going bifocal for the readers, so I
never went back to that office again. I was mad as hell about the
whole thing. Varilux SUCKS!
Larry Jaques
<cmagers@earthlink...net> scrawled the following:
>
>"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:hd9lb...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> CW wrote:
>>> Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only do
>>> plastic lenses. Leaves me out.
>>
>> I'm curious--why does it leave you out?
>
>
>Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of plastic
>lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.
Do you work over a forge, grind metal in enclosed spaces, or do you
just weld without a mask? ;)
Larry Jaques
G.<gr...@nospam.com> scrawled the following:
>DGDevin said:
>
>>diggerop wrote:
>>
>>> Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that
>>> I was vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable
>>> disaster actually worked reasonably well (and could work better, I
>>> have no doubt,) doesn't make me a socialist. Just smart enough to
>>> admit I'm not always right.
>>
>>Well said. Unfortunately a great many Americans (on the left and the right)
>>take an entrenched tribal view of things, and either you stick to their
>>party line all the way, or you're a heretic.
>
>I've noticed that. Perhaps it's something to do with that Us vs. Them
>mentality that becomes entrenched from exposure to high school
>football competition. One reason I've always liked the physical
>sciences - irrefutable, reproducible, fact based truths. Mostly...
Tell that to Algore and the alarmist scientists fearing Anthropogenic
Global Warming (kumbaya), Greg. ;)
Lew Hodgett
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> Is the glass because of the oversize requirement?
Actually it is my requirement.
For me, plastic is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
I can't be bothered with a separate pair of glasses for sunglasses,
thus the photo gray.
Lew
Larry Jaques
<toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:1ochf5t43a8og2emr...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:38:05 +0800, the infamous "diggerop"
>> <toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kj9gf59lvslv9pf1c...@4ax.com...
>>>> none of my business." I like it.
>>>>
>>>> So, what state do you live in down there, other than "of denial"? You
>>>> a sandgroper, a Taswegian, a banana bender, or what?
>>>>
>>>> --A fellow curmudgeon
>>>
>>>Sandgroper. Born and bred. ...... and proud of it : )
>>
>> A proud Sandgroper, eh? Will wonders never cease. <gd&r>
>>
>
>Ten foot tall and bulletproof, too : )
I shoulda known...
>> Say "Hullo" to Phully Laird for me if you get through Nannup. Damn,
>> it's been 7 years now...I wonder if he'll remember me...if the grog
>> ain't got him yet. He slid down from Perth a while back.
>>
>> Well, he looks to be alive, anywho. Egad, tell him he needs a new web
>> guy. 256 color gifs, EEK! http://www.nannupfurnituregallery.com.au/
>>
>>
>
>Nannup, - that would make a nice leisurely weekend bike run. Haven't been
>down that way for many years. ....... got me thinking, summertime, not too
>hot yet ....... hmmm.
>I'll be sure to let you know if I make the run.
Thanks. Where are you running from?
Larry Jaques
scrawled the following:
Join the rest of us, Uppy. Plonk him and forget him!
ups...@teksavvy.com
>somehow taking away education for hundreds of pregnant mothers and
>dooming them to dismal futures. Life isn't a zero sum game.
Of course not. I was responding to heybub suggesting MRI's are good
things for Athletes so they're kept healthy and then charities will
benefit from them being able to volunteer. As far as I'm concerned,
they're strictly for asset protection of the for businesses who own
the athlete's contracts.
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>> There are a lot of things we take for granted that aren't mentioned
>>> in the Constitution, yet it might be awkward to do away with all of
>>> them.
>> But it would be healthy to do so. And you're right - the sheeple have
>> been dulled and have themselves requested a form of government that
>> they "take for granted" so long as their own various oxen are not
>> gored. Then one day, when the economy is on the skids, unemployment
>> has skyrocketed, and the various government bodies broke, the sheeple
>> finally wake up in complete alarm only to demand more gasoline on
>> their foolish fire: More government.
>
> A reliable recognition sign for a certain sort of Usenet character is his
> use of the word "sheeple." People who are convinced *they* are so much
> better informed (and of course smarter) than pretty much everyone else are
> usually neither.
>
I do not think I am "better informed" nor do I think I am better
than anyone. I wish to live my life peacefully, cause no harm or
fraud to others and want the same courtesy extended to me. When
others conspire to pillage my liberty, wallet, or future, I object.
This is not arrogance, it is self-preservation.
> Some of the folks who wrote the Constitution anticipated and even
> recommended its occasional overhaul--why it's almost as if they knew that
> circumstances they could not have foreseen would arise. And yet there are
> those today who apparently would have been happier in the late 18th century,
> if only there were a way to send them back.
Unfortunately for you line of argument here, most of the changes in the
20th Century were done outside those guidelines. FDR, in particular,
attempted to pack SCOTUS because he knew he was violating the limitations
of the Constitution of the US. This is not my opinion, he says as much
in his own notes and writings. More recently, the Anointed One has
been quoted (from his lawyering days) as ruefully acknowledging that
the Constitution is a document of "negative" entitlements and expressing
a desire to make it otherwise. IOW, there has been precious little
conformity to either the 18th Century version of the document NOR it
mechanisms in place to change it. Instead, the political class and the
moochers that they feed have just decided to skip all those steps, not
show their work, and pillage the clear intent of this important bit
of foundational law.
>
>>>> And schools, police, and
>>>> fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
>>>> parks.
>>> Say what?
>> Fire, police, etc. are ordinarily funded at the state/local/city
>> level.
>
> Tell your local govt. you don't want them taking any more federal money for
> things like education or law enforcement and see what their reaction is.
My local government has - as you suggest - become addicted to Federal money.
So what. So has nearly every part of society. That makes this neither
wise nor desirable.
>
>>> Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
>>> protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those
>>> paid by foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the
>>> federal govt. take a more active interest in that industry.
>> That's hilarious.
>
> No, it isn't. Given the opportunity to harden their system against such
> threats the power companies have done almost nothing, and they are painfully
> vulnerable to cyber attacks.
>
>> Let's do a simple examination of some facts -
>
> That would be a refreshing change of pace for you. Alas, the spew that
> followed had little to do with what I posted, and as always it is seen
> through the lens of your "libertarian" paranoia. I don't know why you even
> pretend you're answering what other people post, you're so much happier just
> waving your placard and yelling your chant, and you hardly need to involve
> other people to do that.
And I see that when you cannot answer a discussion of ideas with other
or better ideas you resort to diversion, personal attack, and otherwise
avoiding the topic. The government you wish to enshrine with more power
regularly fails to do its job well already. No amount of rhetorical
tap dancing on your part can avoid this inescapable fact.