From: Tchiowa on

The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Dave Frightens Me
> >>> With an excellent public health system and welfare. Aren't these the
> >>> earmarks of a socialist nation?
> >>
> >>No.
> >
> >What is then?
> ownership of the means of production by the people,

No, it is ownership *OR CONTROL*.

> a public health system is a earmark of a country with some feeling for
> social justice,

A public health system is an earmark of a country with some feeling for
social justice but no idea how to bring it about so they settle on a
short term "feel good" solution that inevitably hurts more people than
it helps. But the politicians who supported it are long out of office
so they don't have to answer for the failure.

> I suppose you could call it social democracy,

No, you could call it "silly".

> although our Tories support it. But they are currently posturing
> to the left of new labour.

From: Tchiowa on

The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Tchiowa
> >> >Why not?
> >>
> >> because it doesn't work.
> >
> >Because it's Socialism.
> why do you keep repeating stuff nobody is disagreeing with?

Because you are disagreeing with ith.

> >Again (and again and again) your type of Luddism has been proclaiming
> >the pending end of the world if we don't retract our economies for
> >centuries. And you've always been wrong.
> you're in a small minority of closed minds who can only make
> irrelevant comments about socialism while ignoring scientific opinion.

So you think that scientific opinion supports Socialism despite the
fact of its repeated failures and obvious fatal flaws?????

> >There is no problem that work can make "worse".
> so you "think"

Name the problem.

> >> >But it was the Socialist economy that crumbled and cause the failure of
> >> >the government, not the other way around.
> >>
> >> We all know that. They saw the "western" model was better and the
> >> rest followed. I'm not sure they are fully on top of democracy yet.
> >
> >Uh, no. Their economy collapsed. They didn't "see" and "follow". Their
> >Socialist system collapsed.
> I didnt totally collapse, it was in a very poor way, without a
> better example to move to, it may have taken a lot longer, but
> this is history, look to the future.

No, it collapsed. I was there. I've seen it. Not just in Russia but in
East Germany, Kazakhstan, Angola, and other places where Socialism
destroyed the economy.

> >> For some reason you have a penchant for misunderstanding things
> >> and then explaining the obvious.
> >
> >For some reason you have a penchant for avoiding historical fact.
> Like what?

Like what? How about like Socialism always fails.

> You mostly repeat irrelevancies that nobody is arguing about.

So you finally agree?

> >And I didn't say that US health care was cheap. Obviously it's not. But
> >the system is sustainable while the NHS is already collapsing. By their
> >own admission. (And by several UK court rulings.)
> >A UK political party hardly represents the "future".
> Eh? Nobody said it did, did they?.

You did.

> >Europe is the past.
> empty assertion

Historical reality.

At it's current rate of growth (or lack thereof) compared to the rest
of the world Europe will become "Second World" by mid-Century if not
earlier. It has already fallen far enough behind the US that it can no
longer be considered economically equal.

> >You are. You're talking about Socialized Medicine which only comes from
> >a Socialist government. By definition.
> nonsense, I don't have a socialist government, we have tax funded
> medicine.

You have a government enforcing a Socialist policy. You don't call that

> >> I live in a free market capitalist system.
> >
> >Which you clearly want to socialize.
> total and complete nonsense.

Are you backing off your support for Socialized medicine?

> If you "clearly" see that it must
> be based on some preconceived ideas of what all opponents of your
> way of thinking must think. Very silly indeed.

You keep voicing your support for Socialism. If you don't want to be
responsible for your own statements, don't make them.

> >> I am talking about things like the desirability within that system of free at point of
> >> delivery medicine (something civilised countries see as a compassionate "must
> >> have")
> >
> >And which has been explained to you simply doesn't exist. It's not
> >"free". You're talking about "free to you". "I want, I want, I want,
> >you pay".
> You are telling me our health system isn't "free" immediately
> after I said it was "free at point of delivery".

Which is set up to create the illusion that it is "free".

I don't have to pay for my medical care when I receive it. I've already
paid the insurance premium. So it is "free at point of delivery". But
what you support is separating the payment from the process completely.

> We *all* pay for the health system,

No, we all *don't* pay for the health system. The wealthier you are the
more you pay and many people don't pay anything at all.

> we don't need you to tell us its not free, we
> know its not free. did you not notice our exchange of comments
> about the relative costs? I have to wonder about you at this point.
> >> and curbing some types of consumption to constrain global warming,
> >
> >No, you talking about curbing virtually all consumption
> Oh, yeah, sure.

You words. Would you like them quoted back to you?

> >The difference between me and you is that I take a realistic view of
> >the world and I want to make sure that the world my children and
> >grandchildren inherit is better than the one I live in. I'm not
> >willing, for example, to sacrifice their access to quality medical care
> >in order to get it "free" for me right now.
> nobody said it was "free", except you. It isn't free.

I said "free for me right now". Again, you want to separate the payment
from the service completely to cast the illusion that it is free and
thus make people think they are getting a free lunch. And that is one
of many reasons why it fails.

> The future of our children is exactly why people are trying to
> reduce polluting consumption to sustainable levels, you don't
> understand that.

You link pollution with consumption. You can reduce pollution without
reducing consumption. You don't understand that so you want to reduce
consumption, period. Which you denied a few paragraphs above.

> >That's what compassionate, civilized people in compassionate, civilized
> >countries care about.
> very true, (except for the comment on medical care).
> As you are still at stage one of thinking I think our health care
> is free (in spite of having compared costs) and thinking that I
> want to socialise our economy based on god knows what, I have to
> conclude there is no point in talking to you. Bye.
> <plonk for a while>


From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Miguel Cruz writes:
> > When I lived in Washington DC a few years ago there were two local loop
> > providers that had reached my street. The incumbent (Verizon) and
> > someone else, I forgot who. They can just go into the manhole and switch
> > your drop.
> So you can only have one provider at a time? That's a monopoly.

????????? No it's not. A monopoly is when you can only have one
provider PERIOD. You have no choice who to provide your service. I can
buy groceries from any of dozens of stores. But as I don't have a split
personality I can only buy from one at a time. Does that make them a

From: Carole Allen on

>JohnT writes:
>> A Registered Charity, which does Humanitarian work?
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:27:38 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)>
>I asked about the doctors, not the organization.
No, you asked about the organizaiton, but to be pedantic, the doctors
who are members would be licensed professionals in their respective

From: Carole Allen on

>JohnT writes:
>> It is FRENCH.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:04:11 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)>
wrote:>Doctors, without, and borders are all English words.
READ the page. The copyright at the bottom is MSF. It says the site
is maintained by the US section of MSF. The timeline of the
organization indicates it was begun by FRENCH drs in 1971 because of
famine in Biafra.

The organization began with the French, and has obviously expanded
worldwide, but its core is french. None of which has anything to do
with British grammar rules.

From its organizational structure: "Doctors Without Borders/Mdecins
Sans Frontires (MSF) has sections in 18 countries. Five of these
sections are considered 'operational sections', meaning that they
directly control field projectsdeciding when, where, and what medical
relief is necessary and, eventually, when to terminate aid. These
sections are: Belgium, France, Holland, Spain, and Switzerland."