From: Tchiowa on

The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Stephen Dailey
> >> a "hideous suburb"???? I'd much rather live in a suburb than in a city.
> >> I have a house, some land, grass for the kids to play on, streets that
> >> are safe, low crime, low pollution, low noise.
> >
> >Thanks, Tchiowa. I was trying to figure out the meaning of the phrase
> >"hideous suburb." IMHO there's nothing hideous about being able to afford
> >to live in my own building on my own lot.
> I think you both might be confusing the centre of, say, Detroit
> with the centre of European cities, where it is sometimes
> considered a big advantage to not commute, not need a car on a
> daily basis and be able to gather together in public places like
> the plaza mayor (my experience is of Spain) to interact with the
> community and walk to bars, pubs and restaurants etc

I've spent time in a "European Big City" or two. London, Paris,
Amsterdam, Madrid, Lisboa, Rome, Berlin, Budapest, Moscow, to name a
few. The comparisons above are accurate. Suburbs are generally safer.
You can own your own lot. Have a private home rather than sharing a
wall, floor, ceiling with someone else. More peace and quiet. Children
have lawns to play on. If they feel like playing in the street they
can. You compare that with the ability to walk to a pub????????

From: Tchiowa on

The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Tchiowa
> >> We are living the system day to day,
> >
> >and ignoring the fact that it's been tried before repeatedly and has
> >failed repeatedly.
> how can it have failed if we are living it happily. Take your blinkers off.

Short term thinking. Again, it has been tried before and failed. You
are ignoring history because you get to live in the comfortable part of
it rather than the next generation that has to pay the price.

Myself, I think that part of my "quality of life" is knowing that my
children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. will all have an
equal or even better chance at comfort and success that I have had.
Socialism prevents that. That's not just my opinion. That's proven
historical fact.

From: Tchiowa on

Richard wrote:
> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote in message
> news:1153099807.233778.280220(a)
> > I saw a very interesting "debate" on one of the news shows a couple of
> > years ago (seems like it was Hard Talk but I'm not sure). The debate
> > was about Socialized Medicine as it relates to drugs. Canada tightly
> > controls drug prices to keep their Socialized Medicine system afloat.
> > There was a Canadian government leader defending that. On the other
> > side was a drug company exec. The drug exec said that the price
> > controls in Canada had stopped innovation. No new drugs are being
> > developed in Canada. The government official refuted that. He pointed
> > out that in the last decade *3*(!!) new drugs had been developed in
> > Canada. That's right. 3!!!!!! Proving what the drug exec said. In the
> > same period of time probably 3,000 had been developed in the US.
> When the government runs things, the goal - as you said a could posts ago -
> is public interest rather than profit.

When the goverment runs businesses the result is failure. The goal is
irrelevant if they can't achieve it.

> The opposite tends to happen when you leave things in the hands of private
> enterprise.

And how do companies make a profit? By providing consumers with the
things that they want and need at a price that the consumer thinks is
fair and appropriate.

Success guaranteed.

> I'd rather 3 good medications than 3000 questionable ones, out of which 500
> are probably hair loss treatments that cause dryness of mouth and difficulty
> to control one's bowel movements.

"Questionable"? My sister suffers from MS. The doctors told her that
she would be dead a couple of decades ago. Her disease is under control
thanks to some of those 3,000 "questionable" drugs you complain about.
If we had had socialized medicine 30 years ago my sister would already
have died because the drugs she needs wouldn't have been invented.

And if we go with socialized medicine then 10 or 20 years from now
people will be dying because the medicines they need will never have
been invented.

And that is reality.

> But hey, if you're impressed with big numbers....

I'm impressed with the extra 20 years of life that medical innovation
has given my sister. Fairly impressive number, IMHO.

From: Mxsmanic on
Tchiowa writes:

> And think about that for a minute. That much vacation for a new
> employee? That's a high cost. That is one of the reasons that
> unemployment is higher in the EU than it is in the US. So while new
> workers in the EU get more vacation than new workers in the US, more
> workers iin the EU can't get jobs, period. Enforced vacation.

Vacation is really the last problem that the EU needs to worry about.
I know that Americans feel they have to rationalize their pitifully
short vacations, but nothing about long European vacations has any
influence on the various employment and economic problems that Europe

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

> "Questionable"? My sister suffers from MS. The doctors told her that
> she would be dead a couple of decades ago. Her disease is under control
> thanks to some of those 3,000 "questionable" drugs you complain about.

The evolution of MS is extremely variable and unpredictable. I
wouldn't assume that any type of medication alone is responsible for
holding off the disease.

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