From: Mxsmanic on
Tchiowa writes:

> Many phone companies have access to the same wires.

But there is only one set of wires, so you can only have one provider
at a time.

> And the government service is lousy and losing money.

No worse than the private sector was.

> But I do.

How many sets of wires do you have entering your house? Do you have a
switch you can flip to change from one electrical power provider to

> But they have a choice over who provides it and under what
> circumstances. As an example when my kids were in high school I used an
> HMO that happened to have a hospital almost across the street from
> their school. They had their cards and if they needed medical care they
> walked across the street. Now my circumstance has changed and that HMO
> is no longer convenient for me so I changed providers.

The same choice exists with national health care. You have that
option in France, for example.

> So when you think of avoiding waste and abuse you think of the
> government????

It depends on the domain. In some cases, if I must choose between
deliberately poor service and high prices (from a private-sector
monopoly) and mere inefficiency (from a government monopoly), I choose
the latter.

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on
Tchiowa writes:

> The word government comes from the Swahili word meaning "waste and
> abuse". And "corruption, inefficiency"

It comes from Greek, via Latin and French.

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Carole Allen on
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:36:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)>

>Carole Allen writes:
>> Can't you read? They are NOT purchasing items for their personal use.
>Where do the doctors live, and how do they eat?
>> They are funding transport of people and material to places where drs
>> and medical support staff are needed. They are purchasing medicine
>> and medical equipment for these purposes. They are not buying rolexes
>> and land rovers and symphony tickets, nor are they buying air
>> conditioners for their homes, or feeding themselves a constant string
>> of sugary drinks and McD burgers.
>And apparently, according to you, they are not buying food or shelter,
>either, since those would be distinctly personal items.
>> Oh, and I would bet those places are HOT, and people are
>> living in tents in camps and do NOT have AC.
>Who purchases the tents? Those are personal items.
As I understand it, many of the people providing services "on the
gorund" are drs or health care workers who have their own pratices, or
work in hospitals, and take unpaid time from their "real" lives to
travel to some godforsaken country and donate services to the
organization. They also leave their real jobs and lives to respond
to such things as injuries due to earthquake disasters, floods, etc.
The organization must have a staff as well, so they have
administrative costs, every organization will have some administrative
costs, even a charitable one. Those may be covered by other sources.
I don't know where administrative expenses are paid from...there may
be wealthy benefactors or other health organizations that provide
grants or other sources of funds. I didn't read all the links on the
From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate on
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)> wrote:

> Dave Frightens Me writes:
> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:36:25 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Dave Frightens Me writes:
> > >
> > >> You asked "What does that make
> > >> [Doctors without Borders]?". That can only be read as the
> > >> organisation.
> > >
> > >Then why do the British refer to organizations with plural forms of
> > >verbs?
> >
> > You should know the reason, if you teach the language.
> Yes. They do it because they are thinking of people within the
> organization.

Not really. It's more common in the UK to refer to MSF in the singular.
You don't know what you're talking about, but wth your history (e.g.
"tones") that's not a surprise. Stick with the day job. What is that

> Thus, Doctors without Borders can indeed be read as
> something other than the organization, contrary to your assertion.
> QED.

Can- maybe- in this context, no. Liar.

David Horne-
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
From: Mxsmanic on
Tchiowa writes:

> Our deficit spending ballooned in 2001 to help recover from the
> recession caused by the tech bubble bursting.

It didn't work. And there are recessions every 18 months, anyway.
The country has been in recession, recovering from recession, or
entering recession for the past several decades. The general quality
of life in socioeconomic terms has been on the decline for more than
thirty years.

> As a percent of GDP it is lower than most developed countries.

The public debt of the United States is 64.7% of GDP. It is 67.3% for
Germany, 43.1% in the UK, 66.2% in France, 158% in Japan (!), 12.9%
for Russia, and 24.4% for China.

> Our deficit is not bad at all in the grand scheme of things.

It's a lot worse than those of Russia or China.

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.