Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Socialized medicine (UK) horror story

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Crispin

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 3:58:55 AM3/4/03
to
Herb Woodend, the longtime curator of the Pattern Room of the British
Ministry of Defense (one of the premier small arms collections of the
world before it was recently shut down) was diagnosed with colon cancer
shortly after he retired. The surgery was botched and did not remove all
the tumor.

Even though Mr. Woodend was a holder of the Order of the British Empire
(OBE) for his decades of outstanding service, the British socialized
medicine bureaucrats refused to do anything more.

Mr. Woodend sold most of his possessions and came to a free country (the
USA) in hopes of saving his life. The Cancer Center at the University of
Texas did a medical evalation and determined that he has a fighting
chance.

The British socialized medicine system won't help; they just want him
to die. Of course, he doesn't have US health insurance.

Consequently, Mr. Woodend will pay the $100,000+ cost of treatment
himself.

This, boys and girls, is the future of your medical treatment if Comrade
Hillary and her fellow Democratic Party gangsters get their way. You will
be taxed all your life to fund a bureaucracy that will tell you "go away
and die" when your medical costs become too expensive.

Of course, no expense will be spared to give Comrade Hillary and the other
members of the Inner Party the ultimate in tax-paid medical care.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

Shea F. Kenny

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 7:16:11 AM3/4/03
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:58:55 -0800, Mark Crispin
<m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>Of course, no expense will be spared to give Comrade Hillary and the other
>members of the Inner Party the ultimate in tax-paid medical care.

Or alcoholic treatment...........;-)


/\
\__/

B. Nice

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 11:01:54 AM3/4/03
to
"Mark Crispin" <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.55.03...@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...

> Herb Woodend, the longtime curator of the Pattern Room of the British
> Ministry of Defense (one of the premier small arms collections of the
> world before it was recently shut down) was diagnosed with colon cancer
> shortly after he retired. The surgery was botched and did not remove all
> the tumor.

Is this anything like the story of the woman mis-diagnosed with breast
cancer who had the wrong breast removed?

Or the girl who had a heart and lung transplanted -- with the wrong blood
type and died?

And the Republicans want to limit awards for pain and suffering to
$250,000.00?

Fucking hypocrit.

-b

GravyCat

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 1:56:38 PM3/4/03
to

"B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y61pvam...@newsgroup.korea.com...

Also, Mr Woodend has the means for treatment ($100,000). It is the people
who don't have the means that have the problem, and need help.

So tell me Crispy - if a hard-working person with no insurance and no
savings comes down with stomach cancer in America, what are his options?

*Our* system also tells people to go away and die - just in a different way.


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 4:28:39 PM3/4/03
to

xxxx
I'm calling you on yer bullshit !!!
You don't have a clue.

29

SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 4:31:29 PM3/4/03
to
vpol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:58:55 -0800, Mark Crispin
> <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>>Herb Woodend, the longtime curator of the Pattern Room of the British
>>Ministry of Defense (one of the premier small arms collections of the
>>world before it was recently shut down) was diagnosed with colon cancer
>>shortly after he retired. The surgery was botched and did not remove all
>>the tumor.
>>
>>Even though Mr. Woodend was a holder of the Order of the British Empire
>>(OBE) for his decades of outstanding service, the British socialized
>>medicine bureaucrats refused to do anything more.
>>
>>Mr. Woodend sold most of his possessions and came to a free country (the
>>USA) in hopes of saving his life. The Cancer Center at the University of
>>Texas did a medical evalation and determined that he has a fighting
>>chance.
>>
>>The British socialized medicine system won't help; they just want him
>>to die. Of course, he doesn't have US health insurance.
>>
>>Consequently, Mr. Woodend will pay the $100,000+ cost of treatment
>>himself.
>
>
>
> Let's hope he doesn't end up at Duke, aye?
>
xxxxx
When you need a doctor you will go to Canada I'm sure.
29

GravyCat

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 5:15:20 PM3/4/03
to

"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E651C38...@attbi.com...

Fill in the blanks then Smitty -

Options for hard-working non-insured no-savings cancer patient:

1)
2)
3)

Let's see your collection of clues


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 5:49:11 PM3/4/03
to

xxxxx
This is what I mean by not having a clue. That's because you
are too lazy to do your own research. You would rather post
false information.
I'm giving you 48 hours for discovery on your own.

If I have to disclose public information to you then I think
we can all dismiss anything else you ever post as incorrect.

Now get to work for a change....

29

SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 5:55:00 PM3/4/03
to
vpol...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:15:20 GMT, "GravyCat"
> <pat...@pugetsound.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>*Our* system also tells people to go away and die - just in a different
>>>
>>way.
>>
>>>xxxx
>>>I'm calling you on yer bullshit !!!
>>>You don't have a clue.
>>
>>Fill in the blanks then Smitty -
>>
>>Options for hard-working non-insured no-savings cancer patient:
>>
>>1)
>>2)
>>3)
>
>
> A neighbor of mine's daughter had leukemia. His insurance coverage
> refused her a bone marrow transplant, her best hope. As she sickened
> in her last days the dad took more time off work. they canned him and
> he lost all health coverage. To pay for her chemo he ended up selling
> everything, the house the car, and then she died and he was left
> bankrupt.
>
> Yeah Smitty a great system.
>
xxxx
Yer pal Gravy cat has 48 hours to find answers so wait for
his post because I'm not going to do his research or yours
for that matter.

29

Mark Crispin

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 6:31:50 PM3/4/03
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, GravyCat wrote:
> Also, Mr Woodend has the means for treatment ($100,000).

A retired British individual liquidated his net worth -- after making a
lifetime of tax payments to UK socialized medicine so he wouldn't have to
do this.

Tell me; do you consider a retired individual with a net worth of $100,000
to be "wealthy"? Most people would consider such an individual to be in
the lower middle class at best. Try being retired and living on payments
from a $100,000 annuity.

> It is the people
> who don't have the means that have the problem, and need help.

Why does an individual who lives in the paradise of socialize medicine
have this problem?

> So tell me Crispy -

Oh, so mature. But wait, I see that you posted from Boeing. That
explains a lot.

> if a hard-working person with no insurance and no
> savings comes down with stomach cancer in America, what are his options?

Have you ever had a family member in such a situation? Do you know what
happens? Or do you just believe what's in the Worker's Daily or your
Boeing union propaganda?

I happen to have some first-hand knowledge, since this happened in my
family. And having seen the health care that welfare cases in the US get,
as opposed to ordinary people in socialized medicine countries, it's clear
that for all its faults the US still does it better.

People in the US aren't told "we spent enough money on you, now we're
going to let you die." People in the US may lose all their assets into
the ravening maw of health care, but treatment won't end just because they
become welfare cases.

> *Our* system also tells people to go away and die - just in a different way.

Bullshit.

Come up with a single example in which a person in the US was refused
life-saving medical treatment because of an inability to pay. You'll have
a hard time doing so, because it is very illegal.

Contrast that to socialized medicine, you get refused life-saving medical
treatment because the government doesn't want to pay. And now, they're
adding euthanasia. "We won't pay for the surgery that may save your life,
but we'll pay for the syringe of pink stuff to send you to your eternal
reward."

B. Nice

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 6:52:04 PM3/4/03
to

"Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.55.03...@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...

> People in the US aren't told "we spent enough money on you, now we're
> going to let you die." People in the US may lose all their assets into
> the ravening maw of health care, but treatment won't end just because they
> become welfare cases.

Three words to share with you Marck the Ignorant:

Comfort.

Care.

Only.

If you know someone who works in the health industry, preferably in the
field of oncology, I recommend you ask them what this means.

-b


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 7:39:09 PM3/4/03
to
B. Nice wrote:
> "Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.55.03...@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
>
>
>>People in the US aren't told "we spent enough money on you, now we're
>>going to let you die." People in the US may lose all their assets into
>>the ravening maw of health care, but treatment won't end just because they
>>become welfare cases.
>
>
> Three words to share with you Marck the Ignorant:
xxxx
You start the name calling and you could end up talking to
yourself.
29

Mark Crispin

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 8:48:22 PM3/4/03
to
B. Nice wrote:
> Comfort.
> Care.
> Only.
> If you know someone who works in the health industry, preferably in the
> field of oncology, I recommend you ask them what this means.

In one situation, a socialized medicine bureaucrat doesn't want to expend
funds on a patient that has a fighting chance of survival and recovery,
even though the patient has over the years paid much more than the needed
amount into the socialized medical system through taxation.

In the other situation, the best medical judgement is that heroic efforts
to save the patient's life will be futile, and would put the patient
through needless pain and suffering. The judgement remains unchanged
even when there is money to spend, and the physician's financial interest
would be in continuing heroic efforts.

"B. Nice" would have us believe that the two situations are equivalent.

I consider these two situations to be completely different.

I am also bewildered at why American socialists are so determined to
impose socialism here, rather than move to a socialist country. The US is
one of the few places left in the world in which anti-socialists can go to
escape from the creeping crud of socialism.

B. Nice

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 8:59:26 PM3/4/03
to

"Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.55.0303041729130.2808@Tomobiki-

> I am also bewildered at why American socialists are so determined to
> impose socialism here, rather than move to a socialist country. The US is
> one of the few places left in the world in which anti-socialists can go to
> escape from the creeping crud of socialism.

You don't even know what "socialism" or "a socialist" is.

-b


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 9:25:52 PM3/4/03
to

xxxxxx

-b, that was really dumb.

29

GravyCat

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 9:20:15 PM3/4/03
to

"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E652F17...@attbi.com...

> >>You don't have a clue.
> >
> >
> > Fill in the blanks then Smitty -
> >
> > Options for hard-working non-insured no-savings cancer patient:
> >
> > 1)
> > 2)
> > 3)
> >
> > Let's see your collection of clues
> >
> >
>
> xxxxx
> This is what I mean by not having a clue. That's because you
> are too lazy to do your own research. You would rather post
> false information.
> I'm giving you 48 hours for discovery on your own.
>
> If I have to disclose public information to you then I think
> we can all dismiss anything else you ever post as incorrect.

yea whatever....

Look Smitty - the options will either cost the victim his life savings (and
usually leaves his survivors holding the bag as well), or cost the taxpayers
(and insurance rate-payers) an excessive amount in emergency and/or
government reimbursed services.

The health care system needs reform - in a big way (and not just caps on
liability suits). The solution will not be an entirely socialized system,
nor entirely privately funded one either. There is a good compromise that
can be had - but having folks like you rush about wild-eyed crying
"Communism!" at the prospect of any Government participation just doesn't
help.


GravyCat

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 9:19:30 PM3/4/03
to
"Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.55.03...@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...

> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, GravyCat wrote:
> > It is the people
> > who don't have the means that have the problem, and need help.
>
> Why does an individual who lives in the paradise of socialize medicine
> have this problem?

Britain is not a model to base our system on.

>
> > So tell me Crispy -
>
> Oh, so mature.

Hmm - a bit thin-skinned, eh? Noted.

> But wait, I see that you posted from Boeing. That explains a lot.

Care to expound?

>
> > if a hard-working person with no insurance and no
> > savings comes down with stomach cancer in America, what are his options?
>
> Have you ever had a family member in such a situation? Do you know what
> happens? Or do you just believe what's in the Worker's Daily or your
> Boeing union propaganda?

I do not belong to a Union. I voted specifically to reject joining two
different Unions. Luckily the "No" votes carried the day both times.

>
> I happen to have some first-hand knowledge, since this happened in my
> family. And having seen the health care that welfare cases in the US get,
> as opposed to ordinary people in socialized medicine countries, it's clear
> that for all its faults the US still does it better.

We can improve it. Surely you don't think that it's sufficient as is?

>
> People in the US aren't told "we spent enough money on you, now we're
> going to let you die." People in the US may lose all their assets into
> the ravening maw of health care, but treatment won't end just because they
> become welfare cases.

No - it will just become more inefficient and expensive.

>
> > *Our* system also tells people to go away and die - just in a different
way.
>
> Bullshit.

Strictly speaking, you are correct, and I apologize for the hyperbole. But
when an elderly person is faced with the prospect of losing all their assets
and burdening family and society in order to recieve life-saving treatment,
they might not make the right choice, or for the right reasons. The same
goes when choosing between buying critical medication and paying the heating
bill, etc.

We can improve this situation, provided that extremists like you don't see
bogeymen every time government participation is considered.


---------------------------------------------------------

Please note that the views expressed are mine, and in no way reflect the
views of my Employer.

Clave

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 9:38:07 PM3/4/03
to
"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E6561E1...@attbi.com...

I'd stay out of it if I were you. You don't know either.

Jim


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 9:54:30 PM3/4/03
to

xxxxx
OK fella post your def. I've posted mine about 10 times so far.
So put up or shut up...

29

Clave

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 10:01:06 PM3/4/03
to
"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E656897...@attbi.com...

No you haven't -- you've dodged the question every time it's been asked.

Jim


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 10:15:57 PM3/4/03
to
xxxx
B U L L S H I T !!!!!!

but having folks like you rush about wild-eyed crying
> "Communism!" at the prospect of any Government participation just doesn't
> help.

xxxx
You don't want socialism in medicine... Socialist (
communist ) medicine S U C K S !!!

>
>

xxxxx
Do your homework and can the double talk. You made some
pretty strong allegations now back them up.
Show us the dying indigents in the streets.
Yer kind of talk gets my blood pumping because I
have been in healthcare support a good number of years and
when I read bullshit like yours I respond. Yeah you do sound
like a socialist/communist complaining about the best health
care in the world.
Some changes in reimbursement are required. I posted Patty
Murrays reports.
But one thing won't change and that is you are responsible
for your insurance and your healthcare and it will never be
cheap, never... Deal with it like I do. I pay $8500.00/yr.
for insurance as we are self employed and wouldn't have it
any other way. And yes, we love America and don't care to
support the lazy any more than we have to.
I abhor socialized medicine for I have had enough experience
to know it's the shits. So pay your dues.
29

SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 10:36:20 PM3/4/03
to

xxxx
Not true. Post yours now.....

29

Clave

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 10:38:37 PM3/4/03
to
"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E657265...@attbi.com...

<...>

> >>>>>You don't even know what "socialism" or "a socialist" is.
> >>>>

> >>>>-b, that was really dumb.
> >>>
> >>>I'd stay out of it if I were you. You don't know either.
> >>

> >>OK fella post your def. I've posted mine about 10 times so far.
> >>So put up or shut up...
> >
> > No you haven't -- you've dodged the question every time it's been
> > asked.
>

> Not true. Post yours now.....

As soon as you give me a link to one of those "about 10" posts you've supposedly
made.

Jim


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 10:49:11 PM3/4/03
to

xxxx
Go look 'em up your self if you can't believe my word.
I'm insulted that you would question the statement.
It's really hard to go to a dictionary on line. What are you
trying to prove, that the dictionary is wrong ?
Do you have " THE " special def. that makes others wrong ?
Why don't you post your def. for all to see. I get mine from
the American Heritage Dictionary... Big deal.....

29

Clave

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 11:02:56 PM3/4/03
to
"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E657567...@attbi.com...

> Clave wrote:
> > "SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E657265...@attbi.com...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >>>>>>>You don't even know what "socialism" or "a socialist" is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-b, that was really dumb.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'd stay out of it if I were you. You don't know either.
> >>>>
> >>>>OK fella post your def. I've posted mine about 10 times so far.
> >>>>So put up or shut up...
> >>>
> >>>No you haven't -- you've dodged the question every time it's been
> >>>asked.
> >>
> >>Not true. Post yours now.....
> >
> >
> > As soon as you give me a link to one of those "about 10" posts you've
> > supposedly made.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
>
> xxxx
> Go look 'em up your self if you can't believe my word.

Oh, *that's* rich.


> I'm insulted that you would question the statement.
> It's really hard to go to a dictionary on line. What are you
> trying to prove, that the dictionary is wrong ?
> Do you have " THE " special def. that makes others wrong ?
> Why don't you post your def. for all to see. I get mine from
> the American Heritage Dictionary... Big deal.....

My original request was that you describe the differences between liberalism and
socialism, remember? You're right, *anyone* can post a definition from an
on-line dictionary, but I was interested in seeing if you could intelligently
compare two different political philosophies, especially when you use them
interchangeably.

Still waiting...not going to hold my breath, though. You're just going to run
away again.

Jim


Bill Bonde

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 11:45:16 PM3/4/03
to

vpol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:15:20 GMT, "GravyCat"
> <pat...@pugetsound.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>

> >> > *Our* system also tells people to go away and die - just in a different
> >way.
> >>
> >> xxxx
> >> I'm calling you on yer bullshit !!!
> >> You don't have a clue.
> >
> >Fill in the blanks then Smitty -
> >
> >Options for hard-working non-insured no-savings cancer patient:
> >
> >1)
> >2)
> >3)
>

> A neighbor of mine's daughter had leukemia. His insurance coverage
> refused her a bone marrow transplant, her best hope. As she sickened
> in her last days the dad took more time off work. they canned him and
> he lost all health coverage. To pay for her chemo he ended up selling
> everything, the house the car, and then she died and he was left
> bankrupt.
>
> Yeah Smitty a great system.
>

Aren't we seeing though that the UK system isn't better?


--
"... Poetry is dying first. It'll be absorbed into prose sooner or

later. For instance, the beautiful word, the colored and glittering

word, and the beautiful simile belong in prose now. To get

attentionpoetry has got to strain for the unusual word, the harsh,

earthy word that's never been beautiful before. Beauty, as the sum of

several beautiful parts, reached its apotheosis in Swinburne. It can't

go any further--except in the novel, perhaps."

Dick interrupted him impatiently:

"You know these new novels make me tired. My God! Everywhere I go some

silly girl asks me if I've read 'This Side of Paradise'. Are our girls

really like that? If it's true to life, which I don't believe, the next

generation is going to the dogs. I'm sick of all this shoddy realism. I

think there's a place for the romanticist in literature."

-+ "The Beautiful and Damned", F. Scott Fitzgerald

Bill Bonde

unread,
Mar 4, 2003, 11:47:28 PM3/4/03
to

GravyCat wrote:
>
> "SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E652F17...@attbi.com...
>
> > >>You don't have a clue.
> > >
> > >
> > > Fill in the blanks then Smitty -
> > >
> > > Options for hard-working non-insured no-savings cancer patient:
> > >
> > > 1)
> > > 2)
> > > 3)
> > >
> > > Let's see your collection of clues
> > >
> > >
> >
> > xxxxx
> > This is what I mean by not having a clue. That's because you
> > are too lazy to do your own research. You would rather post
> > false information.
> > I'm giving you 48 hours for discovery on your own.
> >
> > If I have to disclose public information to you then I think
> > we can all dismiss anything else you ever post as incorrect.
>
> yea whatever....
>
> Look Smitty - the options will either cost the victim his life savings (and
> usually leaves his survivors holding the bag as well), or cost the taxpayers
> (and insurance rate-payers) an excessive amount in emergency and/or
> government reimbursed services.
>

Isn't that a socialized medicine saftey net? What do you suggest?


> The health care system needs reform - in a big way (and not just caps on
> liability suits).
>

Caps on liablity suits would help a lot.


> The solution will not be an entirely socialized system,
> nor entirely privately funded one either. There is a good compromise that
> can be had - but having folks like you rush about wild-eyed crying
> "Communism!" at the prospect of any Government participation just doesn't
> help.
>

But the government is pratisipating and the government is driving part
of the problem. Show us a system that actually works.

Shea F. Kenny

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 12:16:54 AM3/5/03
to
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:20:15 GMT, "GravyCat"
<pat...@pugetsound.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>The health care system needs reform - in a big way (and not just caps on
>liability suits). The solution will not be an entirely socialized system,
>nor entirely privately funded one either. There is a good compromise that
>can be had - but having folks like you rush about wild-eyed crying
>"Communism!" at the prospect of any Government participation just doesn't
>help.
>
Why should the government be involved in charity? Why should
the government give money to people that didn't earn it and possibly
can't earn it?

If you want to give money away, give it away. There's just
no reason for the government to be doing it.

Even if people will die. Do you know who these people are and
don't want them to die? Give them what they need and get out there and
convince others to do the same.

It's not the government's job. The government can't take care
of everyone. The government's job is to make and enforce law.

In fact, how many people do you provide DIRECT care for? Let
alone some charity? Do you have any idea of what it's like?

I mean, sometimes you have to say, "no". I can't. I'm worn
out. You have to TRY and do some of this yourself. Or, I need to get
someone else to help. Or, I need time to find a better way of doing
this. Or any variety of things that come up with people that can't
care for themselves.

Bottom line, the government isn't set up for charity, even
though people pretend that it is. Charity, is set up for charity. They
know what they're doing, and what to expect.

Government will only find every excuse to spend money. Look
at the institute of health. They look at what we eat and drink, let
alone what manner in which we could be attacked. Let us eat and drink
as we please, it's none of your business. Your job is to protect us
from invasion. Let private charities and organizations evaluate our
eating habits. We'll support them as responsible citizens, not
politically motivated zealots......


/\
\__/

SMITH29

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 12:33:05 AM3/5/03
to

xxxx
In general I don't refer to liberals very often. The term
isn't very important to me.
I pay more attention to socialistic ideas rather than being
concerned about whether a person is a liberal or not.
A liberal can be a Republican when it comes to politics.
Liberal is a term that is a poor definition for most people.
If someone was to ask me if I was a liberal I would ask "
regarding what matter ? "


I have a friend who is a radiologist. He is active in the
Democratic party and in general considers himself a liberal
but is dead set against socialized medicine for the obvious
reason that it doesn't work well i.e. Russia, Canada, UK...

In politics I concentrate on capitalism, socialism,
communism and non conformist venues. Your personal life
style don't much matter to me.
I'm pretty liberal towards other people's life styles so
long as they don't do drugs around me. If I know someone
does drugs I avoid them in social life.
I'm ultra liberal in automotive power concepts and think the
more cubes the better for hard work and performance
vehicles. I would imagine in some ways you are more
conservative than I am.

29

Clave

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 12:48:13 AM3/5/03
to
"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E658DC2...@attbi.com...
> Clave wrote:

<...>

> > My original request was that you describe the differences between liberalism
and
> > socialism, remember? You're right, *anyone* can post a definition from an
> > on-line dictionary, but I was interested in seeing if you could
intelligently
> > compare two different political philosophies, especially when you use them
> > interchangeably.
> >
> > Still waiting...not going to hold my breath, though. You're just going to
run
> > away again.
>

<...snip horseshit sidestepping...>

Answer the question or admit you can't.

Jim


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 1:00:46 AM3/5/03
to

xxxx
I don't understand the question I guess.
29

Clave

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 1:14:20 AM3/5/03
to
"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E65943F...@attbi.com...
> Clave wrote:

<...>

> >>>My original request was that you describe the differences
> >>>between liberalism and socialism, remember?

<...>

> I don't understand the question I guess.

Then you're even stupider, more ignorant and/or more dishonest than I thought,
and I didn't think that was possible.

Jim


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 1:33:35 AM3/5/03
to

xxxxxx
Here's some you might like. They are down home real life in
the commune type definitions which you can really relate to.

Liberalism : Socialism high on marijuana..

Liberalism : 50 miles to the gallon with your head between
your knees in a Yugo. ( Thanks Rush )

Liberalism : An Oregon hippie commune just before Ma
absconds with the funds.

Liberalism : Sneak listening to Rush on the radio in the
tent and agreeing with him while the rest of the commune
works in the garden in the hot sun.

Liberalism : Telling the others in the commune you voted
Democrat when you didn't.

Liberalism : Knowing yer pal shorted you on the weight of a
bag and considering it human nature while you pork his soul
mate.

Liberalism : Rather than take the time to wash out your one
and only under shorts you simply turn them inside out ;-)

29

Mark Crispin

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 1:37:07 AM3/5/03
to
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, B. Nice wrote:
> You don't even know what "socialism" or "a socialist" is.

And which one of the many definitions of socialism is the one that you
happen to use? Socialism has more factions than espresso joints in
Seattle.

Let's start with something simple: which International?

I rather expect that you're one of the adherants of that particular
faction known as economism. It's always quite entertaining to watch a
pair of Marxists debate each other as to whether economism or revisionism
is the worst heresy. But then again, the followers of economism form the
largest cadre of useful idiots.

SMITH29

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 3:23:04 AM3/5/03
to

xxxx
You know what NIGYSOB means ?

Here is my official USENET definition of the difference
between liberalism and socialism for the sole usage of the
Clave.
--------- ` ---------
" A Liberal is a Socialist stoned on marijuana "
--------- ` ---------

HTH Clave,
Yerpal
The29

Martin W. Smith

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 4:04:35 AM3/5/03
to
Mark Crispin wrote:
> The surgery was botched and did not remove all the tumor.

That happens in private medicine systems.

> Even though Mr. Woodend was a holder of the Order of the British Empire
> (OBE) for his decades of outstanding service, the British socialized
> medicine bureaucrats refused to do anything more.

Ignoring, for the moment, whether anything more *should* have been done,
the fact that Mr. Woodend was an OBE would be irrelevant in a socialized
medicine system. In a socialized medicine system, neither class nor any
other elite status allows you to expect better service. Everyone is
supposed to have equal access based on those measures.

> Mr. Woodend sold most of his possessions and came to a free country (the
> USA) in hopes of saving his life. The Cancer Center at the University of
> Texas did a medical evalation and determined that he has a fighting
> chance.

Do you mean there is disagreement among medical opinions? That happens
quite often. It often happens in the US that a hospital determines that
a patient does not have "a fighting chance." When that happens in the
US, the patient's insurance company will normally refuse to pay for the
operation. Mr. Woodend's example also happens in the US.

> The British socialized medicine system won't help; they just want him
> to die. Of course, he doesn't have US health insurance.

What do you mean "they just want him to die."? That is nonsense. You
are claiming that some individuals in the UK are guilty of criminal
negligence. Mr. Woodend clearly has immediate legal recourse in that
case.

> Consequently, Mr. Woodend will pay the $100,000+ cost of treatment
> himself.
>
> This, boys and girls, is the future of your medical treatment if Comrade
> Hillary and her fellow Democratic Party gangsters get their way. You will
> be taxed all your life to fund a bureaucracy that will tell you "go away
> and die" when your medical costs become too expensive.

That's a silly claim. You already *are* taxed all your life to pay for
Medicare, and when you reach retirement age you get Medicare. I suspect
that most retired folks don't want that system thrown out. Furthermore,
I have lived in two countries that have socialized medicine systems,
Australia and Norway, and I think they are both much better systems than
the US system. I've always found the quality of health care to be
comparable in all of them. And I have found that access to the system,
whenever I need it, has always been more efficient and much less costly
in Australia and in Norway than it ever was in the US.

You can always find these extraordinary anecdotes in any system. You
can find them in the US just as well as you can find them anywhere else.

> Of course, no expense will be spared to give Comrade Hillary and the other
> members of the Inner Party the ultimate in tax-paid medical care.

I think you don't know what you are talking about.

martin

--
Martin Smith email: m...@computas.com
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway

GravyCat

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 11:42:13 AM3/5/03
to

"Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3E658160...@backpacker.com...

A more efficient system for those without resources - a better return on the
dollars we are spending. Personally I would like to see basic preventative
health care provided for those without insurance below a certain income
level, and Hospital vouchers for emergency requirments.

>
>
>
>
> > The health care system needs reform - in a big way (and not just caps on
> > liability suits).
> >
> Caps on liablity suits would help a lot.

Agreed (but not the elimination of the right to sue for liability)

>
>
> > The solution will not be an entirely socialized system,
> > nor entirely privately funded one either. There is a good compromise
that
> > can be had - but having folks like you rush about wild-eyed crying
> > "Communism!" at the prospect of any Government participation just
doesn't
> > help.
> >
> But the government is pratisipating and the government is driving part
> of the problem. Show us a system that actually works.

we can build one, provided that political opponents of the idea don't shoot
it down with rhetoric before it can get started.


Clave

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 2:16:29 PM3/5/03
to
"SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E65B599...@attbi.com...
> Clave wrote:

<...>

> > Then you're even stupider, more ignorant and/or more dishonest than I
> > thought, and I didn't think that was possible.

<...>

> Here is my official USENET definition of the difference
> between liberalism and socialism for the sole usage of the
> Clave.
> --------- ` ---------
> " A Liberal is a Socialist stoned on marijuana "
> --------- ` ---------

What a fucking clown.

Jim


SMITH29

unread,
Mar 5, 2003, 8:23:41 PM3/5/03
to
xxxxx
You wanted my definition and now you have it.

YerPal,
The29
:-)


Bill Bonde

unread,
Mar 6, 2003, 10:15:12 AM3/6/03
to

We've been through this time and time again and Conservatives clearly do
know what socialism and socialists means.

Clave

unread,
Mar 6, 2003, 1:51:48 PM3/6/03
to
"Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3E676600...@backpacker.com...

>
>
> Clave wrote:
> >
> > "SMITH29" <smi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E6561E1...@attbi.com...
> > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > "Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> > > > news:Pine.WNT.4.55.0303041729130.2808@Tomobiki-
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>I am also bewildered at why American socialists are so determined to
> > > >>impose socialism here, rather than move to a socialist country. The US
is
> > > >>one of the few places left in the world in which anti-socialists can go
to
> > > >>escape from the creeping crud of socialism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't even know what "socialism" or "a socialist" is.
> > > >
> > > > -b
> > >
> > > xxxxxx
> > >
> > > -b, that was really dumb.
> >
> > I'd stay out of it if I were you. You don't know either.
> >
> We've been through this time and time again and Conservatives clearly do
> know what socialism and socialists means.

Let's see if you can do any better.

What are the differences between liberalism and socialism?

Jim


Bill Bonde

unread,
Mar 6, 2003, 4:07:23 PM3/6/03
to

One letter.

Bill Bonde

unread,
Mar 6, 2003, 4:09:53 PM3/6/03
to

GravyCat wrote:
>
> "Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message

> news:Pine.WNT.4.55.03...@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
> > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, GravyCat wrote:
> > > It is the people
> > > who don't have the means that have the problem, and need help.
> >
> > Why does an individual who lives in the paradise of socialize medicine
> > have this problem?
>
> Britain is not a model to base our system on.
>
As I recall, it was stated that Britain took in too little taxes for a
socialized medical system and too much for a private system. The US
isn't likely to leapfrog the Brits into greater socialism in the medical
system than they have, so what to do?

SMITH29

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 12:03:11 AM3/7/03
to

xxxx
Yer just looking for a damn argument in which ONLY your def.
is right. How childish of you.....
Give us your def..... If you have one.
Until then my def. stands..

LIBERAL : A socialist stoned on Marijuana.

How's that grab ay Clammikins ? He He He !!

29 :-)

Bill Bonde

unread,
Mar 6, 2003, 11:47:08 PM3/6/03
to

"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Mark Crispin wrote:
> > The surgery was botched and did not remove all the tumor.
>
> That happens in private medicine systems.
>

Cancer is called cancer because it often resembles a crab, that is long
tendrils going off in seemingly endless directions. I don't think that
we can say a surgery was necessary botched if they didn't get it all. To
get it all, they might have to remove more patient than they leave.
Clearly we need to improve our chemotherapy drugs and the directablity
of our radiation treatments.

Mark Crispin

unread,
Mar 9, 2003, 4:46:05 PM3/9/03
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, B. Nice wrote:
> > You don't even know what "socialism" or "a socialist" is.
>
> And which one of the many definitions of socialism is the one that you
> happen to use? Socialism has more factions than espresso joints in
> Seattle.
>
> Let's start with something simple: which International?
>
> I rather expect that you're one of the adherants of that particular
> faction known as economism. It's always quite entertaining to watch a
> pair of Marxists debate each other as to whether economism or revisionism
> is the worst heresy. But then again, the followers of economism form the
> largest cadre of useful idiots.

It's been 5 days, and "B. Nice" has not responded.

I'm asking again: which of the many definitions of socialism is the one
that "B. Nice" happens to use?

Certainly "B. Nice", being someone who claims to know what "socialism" or
"a socialist" is, can identify which International.

It is always entertaining to torture baby socialists who have not been
trained for tasks more complex than preaching to the lumpen proletariat.

........................................................................

Speaking of entertainment, I present a little piece entitled "The Seattle
socialists' wet dream."

As we tune our radio for the beginning of today's broadcast.........:

[Tinny music of "Seattle is Red"]

[Male voice] This is Radio Seattle.

[Female voice] This is Radio Seattle.

[Tinny music of "Seattle is Red" repeats]

[Male voice] This is Radio Seattle.

[Female voice] This is Radio Seattle.

[Orchestral version of "Seattle is Red"]

[Male voice] This is Radio Seattle.

Comrades and friends, we begin our program with a quotation from our Great
Leader B. Nice. Our Great Leader has said:
"We want to abolish state power, but not right now; we
cannot do it yet. Our present task is to strengthen the
state apparatus -- the army, the secret police, and the
Party courts -- in order to consolidate socialism."

And now for the news.

[Insert seattle.general postings from certain individuals here.]

We now conclude our program with the Internationale:
Arise, ye peasants in the fields!
Arise, ye workers in the slums!
The Party's whips are cracking;
Another day of toil has begun!
The Party knows what's best for you,
So don't worry your little heads.
Just labor on for the glory,
Of the Party's great leader!
And someday, the happy day will come:
The International will be the entire human race!

[Broadcast ends]

-- Mark --

PS: An attaboy-point to the first person who comes up with the original
quotation, who said it, and can cite where it was published!! This ought
to be an easy one.

PPS: Extra attaboy-points to the first person who identifies the person
who established the idea in the quotation (hint: it is *not* the same as
in the previous question), and can give a precise defintion of which of
the many sub-groups of socialism adhere to that idea. This ought to be
even easier.

B. Nice

unread,
Mar 10, 2003, 12:14:13 AM3/10/03
to

"Mark Crispin" <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.55.03...@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...

> > > You don't even know what "socialism" or "a socialist" is.

> It's been 5 days, and "B. Nice" has not responded.

Responded to what?

> I'm asking again: which of the many definitions of socialism is the one
> that "B. Nice" happens to use?

Happy to provide:

Short definition:
Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 1998 HarperCollins Publishers
socialism [sulzm]
n.
1. an economic theory or system in which the means of production,
distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually
through the state.
It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of
individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and,
usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production
levels.
Compare {capitalism}.
2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the
common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist
economic system.
3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian
revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism:
characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than
need.

Essentially socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism - the state owns all
means of production and distribution. No more private enterprise.

> Certainly "B. Nice", being someone who claims to know what "socialism" or
> "a socialist" is, can identify which International.

I'm sorry, but that sentence simply doesn't make any sense. Would you care
to re-state?

> It is always entertaining to torture baby socialists

I'm sure you are entertained by torturing babies of any bent.

Personally though, I'm not a socialist, so refuse to be offended. Knock
yourself out.

-b


0 new messages