O/T: One Down

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

> Nor can I, but my plastic high index Transitions work well. Much
> lighter on the face too.

Weight doesn't seem to be a problem for me.

Lew

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> Maybe there's a risk, maybe not, but that show didn't prove it, it
> just
> mongered fear.
>
> I stopped wasting my time on that show long ago.
>
> Now, if someone could make black smoke come out of a reporter,
> _that_ I'd
> _pay_ to watch.

Interesting.

You state, "I stopped wasting my time on that show long ago.", but you
seem to be knowledgeable about the piece.

Strange.

Lew

<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
> used to using them?

Depends on the person.

My dad had a tough time, myself, not so much.

BTW, the length of your arms will have a dramatic impact on your
decision to accept bifocals.

Lew

"DGDevin" wrote:

> Or is "socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of those who don't
> know how the rest of the world does it, they just know they don't
> like whatever it is?

Thought that was a prerequisite for membership in the flat earth
society.

Lew

"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

CW wrote:

> 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

"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

"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

<[email protected]> wrote:

> This media is just a platform for him to start politically related
> arguments and inflame discussion as time goes on.

Shunning works.

Lew

"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

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This media is just a platform for him to start politically related
>> arguments and inflame discussion as time goes on.
>
> Shunning works.
>
> Lew
>
>
>

No it doesn't.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> 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.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:53:24 +0800, diggerop wrote:
>
>> Not bad at all for a population of less than 7.5% of the US.
>
> Damm it Digger, every time someone posts a rant, you dazzle'em with facts
> - that's just not fair :-)
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


Heh. Anyone opens their mouth becomes fair game. (Me included.)
Too much time on my hands is the problem. Sitting in this chair for 4 x 1
hour periods a day having treatment leaves me with nothing better to do than
bother other unsuspecting decent folk on the wreck. Messes up the momentum
in the woodworking dept as well.
The good news is that it's all working well and I will soon go onto a
nocturnal treatment regime that will let me keep normal hours and most
likely allow me to rejoin the workforce.

diggerop

Rick Samuel said:

>> 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.

Greg G. said:

>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.
>
>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...



Greg G.

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:[email protected]...
>> 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...
-----------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:47:35 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> 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!

Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then next
time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to standard now.
Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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-
[email protected]

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:18:06 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
scrawled the following:

>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
><[email protected]> 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.

Join the rest of us, Uppy. Plonk him and forget him!

--
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...
-----------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:40:21 +0800, the infamous "diggerop"
<toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:

>"Rick Samuel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> 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. : )

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. --
============================================

J. Clarke said:

>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.
>
>People need NASA to live? Do tell.

Actually, and you'll love this, it can be argued that we do - in the
sense that knowledge gained and research done by and through NASA has
affected our lives in ways that are far reaching and subtle. There
are a number of products on the market whose development was greatly
accelerated by and that are a direct by-product of NASA research. I'd
like to see us make advancements into space even if only to find more
planets to rape, pillage and dump our garbage on. We're running out of
room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
desirable situation. Do you believe the Hubble produces some
interesting results? Try a manned moon base just across the
transition zone on the dark side of the moon. The low gravity and lack
of atmosphere and suspended contaminants lends itself to a broad
variety of scientific research projects.

But here is another reason that should satisfy the chickenhawks. Since
the dawn of the nuclear age we have had reasonably plentiful supplies
of Helium-3. A light isotope of Helium not normally occurring in much
quantity on earth naturally, it is a by product of producing tritium.
He3 is used in a variety of medical, oil and gas detection, and low
temperature quantum physics research facilities at home and abroad.
Since 9/11 the supplies of He3 have been outstripped due to the
massive proliferation of neutron detectors used to detect the movement
of plutonium and other radioactive materials. The price has gone from
$100-$200 liter to $1300-$1600 per liter and sales overseas are on a
DOE/DHS approved basis - the majority of the 60,000 liters/annum being
reserved by the DOE for research projects which are funded by "certain
specific agencies of the US government." Researchers around the world
have invested massive capitol into building facilities, such as the
$1.3 billion J-PARC in Japan, which now cannot be supplied with the
needed He3. Even dilution refrigerator manufactures cannot obtain
sufficient supplies to continue production. It is also used during the
MRI process, to touch on the subject of another current thread.

Guess what we've found in substantially higher quantities compared to
the earth on and around the moon as a by-product of the sun's
radiation and solar winds? Helium-3. We'll catch them evil-doers now.

Of course, I'm dismissing transportation and injecting ample sarcasm,
but you get the idea...


>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.

Things have changed quite a bit since the founders wrote the
Constitution. While I'm not going to even suggest that we usurp the
basic tenets of that document, this is not the same world that existed
in 1789. I believe they left sufficient wiggle room for adaptation. As
for what is not funded by the Federal government, I know quite a few
municipalities that would freak (and fold) if you told them Federal
funds were no longer available. The Federal government disburses money
to areas in need based upon needs and census. There are also numerous
Federal programs and grants which promote development of various civil
infrastructure needs.

Perhaps a confusing phrase, but community power consortiums are power
boards and utilities which are owned by local governments, and thus
the people who live there, and sell power, water, sewage, gas, and
garbage service to the residents in lieu of private power/utility/gas
companies. One such example would be from Newt Gingrich's launch pad
in extremely "conservative" Marietta, GA. The Marietta Board of Lights
and Water has been an extremely successful publicly owned municipal
purveyor of services since 1906. They buy power from the grid at
competitive rates and sell to citizens at below GA Power and Cobb EMC
rates. The service is better as well as the locals know every power
pole, water pipe and transformer in their city - and have to face
their irate neighbors if service lapses.

And I do believe that the TVA, among others, qualifies as a "Federally
funded power grid." They are, in fact, a prime link in the management
of the US power grid. The TVA is one of the largest producers of
electricity in the United States and acts as a regional power grid
reliability coordinator. Most of the nation's major hydropower systems
are federally managed. It's the coal, petrochemical and nuclear plants
which are primarily private.


>> 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?

Controlling costs, believe it or not. Removing the impetus for fraud
and unnecessary tests in order to pad bills, stuffing hospital beds to
maintain a given profit margin, purchasing drugs at competitive rates.
Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334. The final effect would be
remove thousands of outstretched hands that expect a cut of the cash
which flows through the health care system as it stands - which is the
root cause of much of the objections heard today. Everything else is
ginned up hysteria promoted by those who fear losing their cash cow.
Health care is not an option - you cannot simply decide to forgo a
purchase because you can't afford it as you can a new car or a
tablesaw - unless death is a valid option for you. It is a captive
market controlled by what is proving to be rank profiteers.

Additionally, acrimony aside, contrary to the private system a
government run system allows citizens to have input as to what and how
these things are run. Don't like the way things operate? You have the
option of voting the incompetents out of office. Ever try that with a
hospital, HMO, insurance company, or medical lab? Ha! Piss and moan
too much and security will toss you're ass out in the street and the
insurance company will drop your coverage, if they haven't already
refused coverage for a given procedure. Currently, insurance companies
are refusing to cover people who have headaches, mild depression, and
other routine medical ailments. Commonplace operations that are so
pedestrian that they've been performed on kitchen tables in the 1800s
are now priced so high that victims have to sell their homes, enter
bankruptcy, leech from their children just to pay the bills. The bulk
of medical care is not MRIs and brain surgeries - they are common
ailments that demand no unusual skills or treatment techniques.
Removing a bullet used to cost a few chickens and a basket of apples -
drag that into your local hospital and see how far you get...

FWIW,

Greg G.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:42:06 +0800, "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment>
> wrote:
>
>> This country has, even today, a desperate shortage of skilled workers. Every
>> sick day incurred is a loss we cannot afford. Keeping the population healthy
>> makes a much sense to me as the rationale for sevicing your motor vehicle
>> regularly. It's efficient and pays dividends.
>>
>> At the end of the day, on a personal level, what freedoms did I give up? I
>> still have a choice of private health care. I still can have any medical
>> procedure that is not offered under the government system using the same
>> means you referred to above. Insurance and my private means.
>> Cost? My taxes increased. My insurance premiums fell dramatically. On
>> balance, one cancelled out the other. What about the bludgers?, (leeches
>> feeding off the taxpayer.) There seems to be no greater or lesser number of
>> them than there always were. I sure as hell would like to see them weeded
>> out, but it would seem that are and always have been, an inevitable part of
>> any society.
>
> Well said. Try explaining that to the Daneliuks of the world who
> insist on labeling it as stealing, mooching and evil. There's no
> allowance or consideration for the fact that it keeps people working
> and making a contribution. As far as they're concerned, it's someone
> else reaching into their pocket to survive.

This is a completely bogus argument that is foolish on its face. All
the professional moochers that "keep working" are making a
"contribution" in the same measure as received? I rather think not.
If they actually wanted to do that, they could without having to
pillage their neighbors' wallets.

The fact is that the moochers get far more than they ever put in AND
they insist it is their "right" to do so. So, crack whores become
entitled to houses using "their" welfare "income" to pay for same.
It's an astonishing leap that no rational mind should accept for
anything more than it is: Mental Baloney.

I continue to be unclear if you really are this confused about this
matter or just love to argue a lost position. But I'll try again: When
the government takes tax money and applies it in a way that benefits
ALL citizens EQUALLY, it acts more-or-less properly (under the US
Constitution, the Feds are supposed to have an explicit enumerated
power to do any such thing, but that horse left the barn with the
Marxist swine of the 1930s that ran the country).

BUT, when government takes money from one citizen only to hand it over
to some other select subset of citizens, it is STEALING. Government is
supposed to provide "equal protection" for the entire citizenry
before- and under- the law, not pick which citizens are more- or less-
deserving of particular protections. So, for instance, when it
protects the borders, it is secures the entire nation. When it
interdicts in matters of crime, it is making the entire population
safer. But taking from the hated upper classes and giving it directly
to the crack whores benefits only the crack whores.

The fact that moochers support all this is unremarkable - they
parked their conscience at the door long ago. What is maddening is all
the self-anointed saviors of mankind and other do gooders that also
support this kind of immoral action. What is astonishing is that they
sit there wit a straight face talking about how noble and moral their
commitment to "charity" is, all the while with full knowledge that
they are going to do this with Other People's Money that will be
extract by force and/or threat.

Need does not constitute a legitimate claim on the possessions of others.

True charity, kindness, and compassion are voluntary acts, not things
done at the point of a gun.

No one is so important that they are more entitled to the fruit of your
labor than you are.

Government-run social programs are nothing more than proxies for buying
votes from the mooching classes.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J. Clarke said:

>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.

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.

> 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.

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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:[email protected]...
>>> 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

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:25:41 -0500, upscale wrote:
>
>> You've been smoking something too much.
>
> Naah - he's just one of Tim's acolytes.
>

Let's compare writing and content styles:

Bub, Doug, Mark, me, et al argue from facts and about ideas.

The resident leftie apologists like you, Uppy et al argue about
the people that they don't like here and what we have to say.

I'd say you've got major holes in your ideation and fact base.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Greg G. wrote:
> HeyBub said:
>
>> Greg G. wrote:
>>>
>>> Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
>>> the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334.
>>
>> Yep. But Canadians can pay much more for generic drugs. It averages
>> out. For example, one generic I take costs $8.00. It's available at
>> a Canadian pharmacy for $286.00.
>
> I think I'd find a new pharmacy. There is absolutely no reasonable
> excuse for that short of gouging to make up for losses elsewhere or
> perhaps the patent hasn't expired in CA yet. Sounds like a fluke as
> most of the popular patented drugs I researched were considerably
> cheaper. Maybe they priced out the creator's pills instead of generic.
> Since you did not identify the drug, it's all conjecture as to why.

Generic Vicodon. Hydrocodone + acetaminophen

As I said, name brand drugs are almost always cheaper in Canada but generic
drugs are often more expensive. In your example of Lipitor for about $33 in
Canada vs ~$200 in the U.S., the other startling example is that the U.S. is
currently subsidizing the Canadian sick.

It's a balance of terror - here's how it works.

1. The Canadian health system (CHS) approaches Pfizer and says we'll give
you 6¢ per pill for Lipitor
2. Pfizer says they will be glad to sell Lipitor to CHS at $1.00 per tablet.
3. CHS say balderdash! Our people need the drug. We can make it ourselves
for 5¢ per tablet
4. Pfizer says CHS cannot do that as the drug is protected by international
patents
5. CHS says we will abrogate the treaty in the name of saving lives
6. Pfizer says we'll use our clout to engage in a trade war with Canada
7. CHS says we don't have anything to do with oil, so we don't care. Saving
lives is the moral high ground. Do your worst.
8. Pfizer and CHS agree on a price of 8¢

>
>> Maybe. But greed is good. The results of greed are better.
>
> Bettering yourself and your station is life is good, abject greed not
> so much if it harms those who can ill afford it - that is predatory.

Agreed. It's the CONSEQUENCES of greed that can sometimes cause the problem,
not the greed itself.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>> ¹"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?

Did I say we need to eliminate or even minimize profits? No? Then why did
you react as if I did? I believe in free enterprise, and profit is a
powerful motivation for the benefit of the public *provided there is a savvy
cop on the beat*. Unfortunately putting profit ahead of all else can also
lead insurance companies to deny treatment to people who need it. Or it can
lead doctors to set up imaging clinics which bill insurance companies for
needless x-rays or MRIs etc., and we all pay for that. Drug companies--well
anyone paying attention has seen them conceal studies showing dangerous side
effects of their products and so on, all in the name of profit. No, I'm not
saying we should make medicine unprofitable, I'm saying we need to guard
against the mindset in which executive bonuses and stock options and
quarterly earnings are *all* that matters.

> 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....

As always it's only a matter of time until you jump off the rhetorical cliff
with your hair on fire and a scream on your lips--are all libertarians such
drama queens? So you're a believer in the fictional death panels huh?
Figures. Oh, BTW, whoever told you medical advances happen only in America
was pulling your leg. The next time you have an MRI reflect on how much of
the development of that technology occurred outside America, or if you ever
need a hip replacement thank the British orthopedic surgeon who pioneered
that surgery, and so on and so forth. Damn, not everything is invented in
or paid for by America, who knew?

Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 11, 9:14 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:53:14 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> What? You expel your rhetoric from your keyboard. Like that will
>>>> change the direction of politicians?
>>> This media is just a platform for him to start politically related
>>> arguments and inflame discussion as time goes on. He has no practical
>> Please show me one OT thread I have started.
>>
>>> involvement in political affairs other than discussion and doesn't
>>> seem to have anything to do with politics at all, other than whining
>>> and criticizing incessantly about the state of affairs. Hell, the last
>>> election he didn't bother to vote for *anybody*. Basically, Tim is a
>> Utterly false. I vote in all major and most minor elections.
>>
>>> shit disturber par excellence when it comes to discussing politics.
>>> That appears to be his sole function and purpose.
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> How /can/ you vote? (Btw, I'm not asking who you voted for in the last
> presidential election, because I really don't care, aside from the
> fact that it is none of my business.) HOW can you vote if any and all
> politicians and parties are full of " fomenting, hopium smoking, *fill
> in the rest of your long list of anti-government rhetoric*? Nobody on
> this planet is ever going to assemble a governing body of any sort
> that could possibly comply with that pie-in-the-sky view of yours,
> Tim.

There are still candidates that support liberty and the original intent
of the US Framers. Beyond that, I like to vote against the party in
power. In the absence of a sane government, I'll take gridlock.
The more the politicians fight, the less they get done, the better
off we are for the most part.

> All we get to see from you here is a constant, (by now very boring)
> barrage of projectile vomit, long strings of bullshit arguments and
> fanatical crescendos of volatile mud-throwing when it comes to your

Never confuse your inability to respond effectively with a lack
of content on my part.

> government. How DO you vote if all of them are so far below your
> expectations?

They are not all beneath my expectations.

> HOW do you vote?

Regularly and with gusto.

> Better question yet...How do you sleep?

With great ease, peace of mind, and contentment.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:38:09 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> 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.

Comrade Marx called - he wants his ideology back.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:18:06 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
> scrawled the following:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Join the rest of us, Uppy. Plonk him and forget him!
>
> --
> 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...
> -----------------------------------------------------

I'd almost forgotten about how liberals are very tolerant of
all views ... except the ones that demonstrate their moral,
intellectual, and philosophical bankruptcy. Thanks for the
reminder.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:31:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
>> relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
>> Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program
>> does is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon
>> the government for a very basic need.
>
> But we ARE the government.

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried really think that
way? If so, this abomination of a health care bill would never have gotten
as far as it has with polls showing a solid majority opposing it. With the
direct taxation from the income tax, the near-certainty of incumbent
re-election (strengthened through McCain-Feingold), you are electing
aritocrats who intend to rule and intend to use bills like Pelosi-care and
cap and tax to rule as much of citizens' personal lives as they can. They
no longer view themselves as representatives of the people.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:56:20 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Why
>> bother to pursue excellence or make significant sacrifices only to see
>> any resulting reward mandatorily re-distributed to someone who either
>> lacked the skill or motivation to achieve?
>
> So money is the only motivator?
>

No. Time, money, reward all roll together. In the real world, success is
often the reward for extra effort and significant success the reward for
extraordinary effort. We all are providing a slice of our lives to our
work and expect to be compensated accordingly. Extraordinary effort in
advancing an organization's objectives or ensuring a project's success is
professionally rewarding, but those efforts often demand a large slice of
one's personal life -- soccer or basekeball games missed, extended or
frequent travel, long hours at the office and away from home. It is not
unreasonable that those who put forth such effort should rightly expect
monetary reward for such effort. A plaque, thank-you, or title may be nice
for the recipient, but does little to compensate both the laborer and his
family for the sacrifice. Fiscal reward provides both laborer and family
with some amount of compensation for the other things given up. In a
confiscatory society, why should someone make those sacrifices, often
giving up family time and other elements of personal life if most of the
reward is going to be taxed such that the benefit is barely noticeable and
the confiscated amounts used to subsidize somebody who is [maybe] working a
straight 40 hours, attending all of the family events and other benefits of
time away from work?


So in your mind, the person working 60+ hour weeks should be happy to give
60 to 70% of the added compensation for such labor (either by direct
overtime compensation or associated salary rewards) away so that it can be
used to provide largesse to people not working or barely putting forth the
effort?



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Greg G. wrote:
>>
>> Slight correction.
>>
>>> We're running out of
>>> room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
>>> land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
>>> desirable situation.
>> If all the people on earth were stacked up like cordwood, they would
>> fit in a cubic mile. (1 person = 10 cu ft, 1 cubic mile = 147 billion
>> cu ft = 15 billion people per cu mile - allowing for some wiggle room)
>>
>> If all the people of earth were living in an area with the population
>> density of Hong Kong, they would fit in Mauritania. Population
>> density of Hong Kong 16,500/sq mile, 6 billion folks / 16,500 =
>> 410,000 sq mi required. Mauritania is about that size, as is Bolivia
>> and Ethiopia. You could fit ten times the earth's population in the
>> United States.
>>
>> Therefore:
>>
>> Virtually every resource is more abundant today than it was in 1980.
>> See the Simon-Ehrlich Wager (Ehrlich of "The Population Bomb" book,
>> Julian Simon of "The Ultimate Resource").
>>
>> Conclusion: We are running out of neither room nor resources and that
>> the fullness of time has proven wrong virtually every prediction of
>> the prophets of doom (global cooling, Malthusian theory, oil, etc.).
>
> So how much land does it take to feed all these people? Or are you one
> these damned fools who thinks that food appears by magic in grocery stores?
>
>

A decreasing amount. Thanks to people like Norman Borlaug, more people
are fed better using *less* land than at any time in human history. Last
time I checked, the US alone produces enough food to feed every person on
the planet at the subsistence level. That's why farms can now be sold for
other uses - we just don't need the land for farming anymore...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Jaques wrote:

>> 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?

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:53:15 -0800, the infamous "CW"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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!

--
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...
-----------------------------------------------------

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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

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.

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.

J. Clarke said:

>Greg G. wrote:
>> J. Clarke said:
>>
>>> People need NASA to live? Do tell.
>>
>> Actually, and you'll love this, it can be argued that we do -
>
><buncha bullshit snipped>
>
>So, since according to you we _need_ NASA to live, how is that in the
>approximately 99,950 years that elapsed between the birth of the first human
>and the founding of NASA, humanity did not become extinct due to lack of
>NASA?

You are arguing semantics. You snipped the portion where I stated "in
the sense that knowledge gained and research done by and through NASA
has affected our lives in ways that are far reaching and subtle."
I think scientific research is a good thing. No private organization
could have done what we did as a nation, naysayers included. Would you
have preferred that "those evil Ruskies" dominate space? Do you want
to give up Global Positioning Systems, television networks, military
superiority, modern intercontinental telecommunications?

The claim was that it bettered our lives (well, perhaps not your
insular existence), and quite a few people considered it a valuable
scientific exercise in preparation for the future.

Additionally, since the birth of the first human? What, one day
humans just popped up out of nowhere? Gee, perhaps your lineage was
dumped from the waste port of a passing alien craft but as for me, it
was a long and gradual process which resulted in where we are today.
You need to keep up.


>> But here is another reason that should satisfy the chickenhawks. Since
>> the dawn of the nuclear age we have had reasonably plentiful supplies
>> of Helium-3.
>
><buncha more bullshit snipped>
>
>So, what does it cost to make two tons a year of it by fusion or in particle
>accelerators? What does it cost to mine 200 million tons a year of lunar
>regolith?
>
>> Of course, I'm dismissing transportation and injecting ample sarcasm,
>> but you get the idea...
>
>If the idea is that someone is a loon, then, yeah, I'm getting it. And how
>is any of what you describe essential to life?

Now you're being an ass. Many believe it would benefit mankind - oops,
scratch that; the greatest country on earth; the US of A - to have a
base on the moon. If we don't do it, other countries are heading that
way. Are we to be left behind in that as well as in education and
cultural maturity? You'd prefer to waste money blowing up all the
brown people on earth first? It is a goal of all biological organisms
to spread and multiply - even for viruses such as Rush Limbough and
Malik Nadal Hassan - and we're falling behind. And what if China
decides to put a nuclear launch site on the moon, for instance.
Wadda you going to do about it then? Apparently not a damned thing.


>>> 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.
>>
>> Things have changed quite a bit since the founders wrote the
>> Constitution.
>
>However the specific provisions of the Constitution have not changed. If
>you want to change it, change it. Ignoring it is a dangerous path.

Well, you'll have to talk to Congress and the courts about that one.

>> While I'm not going to even suggest that we usurp the
>> basic tenets of that document, this is not the same world that existed
>> in 1789.
>
>That's true. It was not ruled by whining do-gooders with their hands out
>then.

To a degree, true. If it's any consolation I don't like that turd of a
HC bill either. But not because of retarded fears of creeping
socialism, but because it is another indecipherable 2000 page pork
barrel that will profit insurance companies, lawyers, and various
other greedy pigs who will game the system - probably worse than they
do now, and similar to state mandated auto insurance. Now tell me that
industry's not a clusterfuck. I don't want the government acting as
insurer - at gunpoint - supporting an avaricious private for-profit
medical care industry.

We used to have clinics that operated on a sliding scale that serviced
those who could not afford "private health care." There were also
hospitals run by religious and charitable organizations. In this area,
they have all been absorbed by HMOs and private hospital groups. Costs
have skyrocketed as a result - there is NO competition.

Veterans have the VA, elderly have Medicare, and that malignant
proliferation of "whining do-gooders" on the hill certainly have their
asses covered at taxpayer expense - for life - even if tossed out of
office after a week. Everyone else is a fuel screw.


>> I believe they left sufficient wiggle room for adaptation. As
>> for what is not funded by the Federal government, I know quite a few
>> municipalities that would freak (and fold) if you told them Federal
>> funds were no longer available.
>
>Which municipalities would those be? And which funds?

Now you're being just plain stupid.

>> The Federal government disburses money
>> to areas in need based upon needs and census. There are also numerous
>> Federal programs and grants which promote development of various civil
>> infrastructure needs.
>>
>> Perhaps a confusing phrase, but community power consortiums are power
>> boards and utilities which are owned by local governments, and thus
>> the people who live there, and sell power, water, sewage, gas, and
>> garbage service to the residents in lieu of private power/utility/gas
>> companies. One such example would be from Newt Gingrich's launch pad
>> in extremely "conservative" Marietta, GA. The Marietta Board of Lights
>> and Water has been an extremely successful publicly owned municipal
>> purveyor of services since 1906. They buy power from the grid at
>> competitive rates and sell to citizens at below GA Power and Cobb EMC
>> rates. The service is better as well as the locals know every power
>> pole, water pipe and transformer in their city - and have to face
>> their irate neighbors if service lapses.
>
>In other words they businesses that have the power of government.

Semantics. They are municipalities who buy and distribute power, gas,
and water /by the people and for the people./ Just like school
boards, for instance, or should they be abolished as well in your
frightening little world? While I find Twain's* flippant criticisms
of school boards to hold water in many cases, as a society we are a
lot better off with them than without, and attempts at privatization
have turned out poorly due to, again, attempted profiteering.

Again, don't like what you're getting? Vote the bastards out.

* "First God created idiots, that was for practice; then he created
school boards."


>> And I do believe that the TVA, among others, qualifies as a "Federally
>> funded power grid." They are, in fact, a prime link in the management
>> of the US power grid. The TVA is one of the largest producers of
>> electricity in the United States and acts as a regional power grid
>> reliability coordinator. Most of the nation's major hydropower systems
>> are federally managed. It's the coal, petrochemical and nuclear plants
>> which are primarily private.
>
>You can believe anything you want to but if TVA is Federally funded it's
>news to them.

Uh... I don't even know where to begin on that one. The TVA was built
by the federal government as part of the dreaded evil New Deal.
Operating costs are billed as part of the costs of power sold, and
they actually save taxpayers federal funds by managing the waterways
using funds derived from the sale of power.

>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Controlling costs, believe it or not.
>
>By what mechanism?
>
>> Removing the impetus for fraud
>> and unnecessary tests in order to pad bills, stuffing hospital beds to
>> maintain a given profit margin, purchasing drugs at competitive rates.
>
>By what mechanism would the goverment operating as an insurer bring all this
>about?

I don't want them to be an insurer - that promotes the same bloated,
overpriced system we have currently. I would prefer they take the
whole damned thing over similar to Canada, but that's me (and most of
the developed world). Or even do like Japan and limit what can be
ultimately charged for things like x-rays, common lab tests, medical
equipment, and even when and where new hospitals are built so that
they don't end up overbuilt in affluent areas and lacking in poor
areas. Or is it your contention that the lower classes, elderly and
young should simply be left to die? However, argue that we kill off
the incurably stupid and useless and you might gain a convert... ;-)


>> Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
>> the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334.
>
>That's nice. Would anybody have even bothered to develop it for that price?

Why should WE foot the bill for Canada, Spain, or any other country?
Why are US citizens paying more? That is ludicrous. If anything, we
should be subsidizing our own citizens through the sale to others, not
the other way around. And are you so myopic as to believe that the US
is the only country that develops pharmaceuticals or does medical or
scientific research? Just because they don't waste $60 million a year
on advertising per drug per year doesn't mean it ain't out there.


>> The final effect would be
>> remove thousands of outstretched hands that expect a cut of the cash
>> which flows through the health care system as it stands - which is the
>> root cause of much of the objections heard today. Everything else is
>> ginned up hysteria promoted by those who fear losing their cash cow.
>> Health care is not an option - you cannot simply decide to forgo a
>> purchase because you can't afford it as you can a new car or a
>> tablesaw - unless death is a valid option for you. It is a captive
>> market controlled by what is proving to be rank profiteers.
>
>Which "hands" would be removed by the government acting as an insurance
>company?

Answered hereinbefore. I've never said I wanted the government to act
as an insurer for a bloated, for-profit private health care system.


>> Additionally, acrimony aside, contrary to the private system a
>> government run system allows citizens to have input as to what and how
>> these things are run.
>
>When the Post Office stops bombarding me with junk mail get back to me.

Get serious. The post office has nothing to do with what porn sites
you visit or the junk mail you receive from them as a result. Yet the
Postal Service does not receive a tax subsidy for its operations. It
makes money from the "junk mail" which helps offset rising fuel costs
and a declining economy. I get absolutely NO junk mail - Nada.


>> Don't like the way things operate? You have the
>> option of voting the incompetents out of office.
>
>And where, and when, exactly, has this resulted in improvement?

I can't help it that morons elect more morons based upon rhetoric,
fear mongering, and K-Street influence. This is an educational,
perception and common sense problem I cannot control.


>> Ever try that with a
>> hospital, HMO, insurance company, or medical lab? Ha! Piss and moan
>> too much and security will toss you're ass out in the street and the
>> insurance company will drop your coverage, if they haven't already
>> refused coverage for a given procedure.
>
>So how will the government acting as insurer change any of this?

Again, I don't want them to be an insurer. I'd prefer an out of pocket
system with cost controls or a Canadian type system over the current
mess. And it's working fine in a number of countries, thank you.
No death panels, no lines, no dead people because they can't afford
insurance of to pay out of pocket. Generally, the citizens benefiting
from the "evil socialization" of medical care are far happier than
those in the US - except for the wealthy who avoid jumping through
flaming hoops and legal altercations in order to get treatment - many
times the treatment they payed for with insurance. And what is private
insurance but corporatized socialism?


>> Currently, insurance companies
>> are refusing to cover people who have headaches, mild depression, and
>> other routine medical ailments. Commonplace operations that are so
>> pedestrian that they've been performed on kitchen tables in the 1800s
>> are now priced so high that victims have to sell their homes, enter
>> bankruptcy, leech from their children just to pay the bills. The bulk
>> of medical care is not MRIs and brain surgeries - they are common
>> ailments that demand no unusual skills or treatment techniques.
>> Removing a bullet used to cost a few chickens and a basket of apples -
>> drag that into your local hospital and see how far you get...
>
>And the government acting as insurance company will change this how?

You are being repetitive. I've addressed this already.


>> FWIW,
>
>Which is less than I paid for it.

No one forced you to read it or respond, Bubba.
I suspect you are playing devils advocate here, but if not
I feel about the same concerning your "more bullshit" response.



Greg G.

Markem wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:18:33 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:25:41 -0500, upscale wrote:
>>>
>>>> You've been smoking something too much.
>>> Naah - he's just one of Tim's acolytes.
>>>
>> Let's compare writing and content styles:
>>
>> Bub, Doug, Mark, me, et al argue from facts and about ideas.
>>
>> The resident leftie apologists like you, Uppy et al argue about
>> the people that they don't like here and what we have to say.
>>
>> I'd say you've got major holes in your ideation and fact base.
>
> What? You expel your rhetoric from your keyboard. Like that will
> change the direction of politicians?

I have an opinion. I join discussion already well under way and render
that opinion (notice that I do not start these OT festivals). Whether
or not it changes the politicians' minds is irrelevant. But ... it
seems that a good many people here like to start OT discussion and
then run around angrily when they discover that not everyone sees
things their way.

What I do not do is assault the person or character of the
*individuals* who disagree with me. I might call their ideas bad,
absurd, or wrong, but I do not describe them in personally malicious
terms nor do I wish violence upon them (which has been directed at me
in just this thread). The point is that people that will not debate
ideas generally have none. They're usually addicted to the act of
debate, not the content.

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.

- Eleanor Roosevelt


>
> Ovey!
>
> Mark


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:10:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
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.

"diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> 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

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:40:01 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>You sound as if you think a football team owning a MRI machine is
>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.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:33:18 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> 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...
-----------------------------------------------------

DGDevin wrote:
> 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 [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>> ¹"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?
>
> Did I say we need to eliminate or even minimize profits? No? Then why did
> you react as if I did? I believe in free enterprise, and profit is a
> powerful motivation for the benefit of the public *provided there is a savvy
> cop on the beat*. Unfortunately putting profit ahead of all else can also
> lead insurance companies to deny treatment to people who need it. Or it can
> lead doctors to set up imaging clinics which bill insurance companies for
> needless x-rays or MRIs etc., and we all pay for that. Drug companies--well
> anyone paying attention has seen them conceal studies showing dangerous side
> effects of their products and so on, all in the name of profit. No, I'm not
> saying we should make medicine unprofitable, I'm saying we need to guard
> against the mindset in which executive bonuses and stock options and
> quarterly earnings are *all* that matters.
>

OK. How much profit is "enough"? How much is "too much"? And, most
importantly, who is wise enough, honest enough, and fair enough
to make those decisions? The government?


>> 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....
>
> As always it's only a matter of time until you jump off the rhetorical cliff
> with your hair on fire and a scream on your lips--are all libertarians such
> drama queens? So you're a believer in the fictional death panels huh?

Misdirection, ad hominem nonsense. I don't "believe" in any of your
silly straw men. I believe that there is cause and effect, and that
when you distort a market with force (which is what government always
does implicitly) you may get temporal, proximate improvement, but only
at the cost of doing damage to something/someone/somewhere else.

> Figures. Oh, BTW, whoever told you medical advances happen only in America
> was pulling your leg. The next time you have an MRI reflect on how much of
> the development of that technology occurred outside America, or if you ever
> need a hip replacement thank the British orthopedic surgeon who pioneered
> that surgery, and so on and so forth. Damn, not everything is invented in
> or paid for by America, who knew?

No one - especially me - believes that "all" advances happen in the US.
But the majority of the leading edge technologies and pharma do. What I
wrote above is remarkable only to people who've not bothered to look
into the economics of pharma particularly (and/or who are more interested
in arguing for its own sake). When/if the Wise Benevolent Infallible
Government gets to decide just how much profit is "enough", the pharma
companies will be unable to have the US consumer pick up the bulk of the
tab for R&D and delivery to market. This means the rest of the developed
world will see their prices - for those new, bleeding edge drugs - go up.
I can't wait to hear the various collectivist here start howling about
how unfair it is that their medicine costs "too much".



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

DGDevin wrote:

> 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.

The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program does
is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon the
government for a very basic need. Future debates then no longer revolve
around freedom, they revolve around the cost of the health system, what
special interest groups get funded, what rationing is applied to what
unfortunate group of citizens. [Yeah, I know, the statists will cry that
the health insurance companies do that now. The fact is however, that if
one doesn't like what a health insurance company determines, there are
alternatives. At worst, one can leverage one's personal assets and get a
loan for the needed treatment. When government says, "no", the answer
based on the 2000+ page Pelosi/Obama-care bill is "NO".]

This whole fiasco has nothing to do with health care and everything to do
with increasing power and control of the government. This, coupled with
the global warming legislation places the government in control of every
aspect of our lives. Are people really so willing to surrender to this in
the name of having other people pay for their health insurance?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Morris Dovey said:

>Greg G. wrote:
>
>> I also don't want to live at the horrific densities of Hong Kong - or
>> New York City, for that matter. Good God, man, do you not realize the
>> problems China (and others) have faced concerning overpopulation?
>
>People /do/ seem to huddle together. :)

Some people...
A nubile waif, a fifth of Knob Creek and 50 acres are plenty for me.
And maybe a talking parrot. ;-)


>Back in September a Chinese friend sent me a link to his vacation
>photos. Just as not all of the US is like NYC...

Sure - the mountainous regions in particular. Never been there, but
get a lot of nature/science magazines with them colored pichers in em.

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/41920747@N06/

Pretty area. Towards Tibet? I'll have to consult the wall map which
is not visible from here later. Thanks for the link.


>I think he enjoyed getting out of the city (Guangzhou) for a couple of
>weeks.

I bet! Most have acclimated to dense urban life far more than I.

I've had friends from Iran, Afghanistan, France, Japan, England,
Scotland, Italy, Canada, Australia, Germany, India, Moldova, Ukraine,
Israel and probably a few other places I can't recall. Worked with a
number of Taiwanese and Latinos. People are basically the same all
over. For me, technology and computing were the great ice breakers.
Governments & perverted religious leaders are a whole 'nother story...

Notice how I put the "axis of evil" nations up front. You wouldn't
believe the raised eyebrows I get in the more retarded areas of the
south when I mention them - especially, as of late, beleaguered Iran.


Greg G.

J. Clarke said:

>HeyBub wrote:
>> Greg G. wrote:
>>
>> Slight correction.

Yeah, right. Of course...

>>> We're running out of
>>> room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
>>> land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
>>> desirable situation.
>>
>> If all the people on earth were stacked up like cordwood, they would
>> fit in a cubic mile. (1 person = 10 cu ft, 1 cubic mile = 147 billion
>> cu ft = 15 billion people per cu mile - allowing for some wiggle room)

Yes, I want to live stacked like cordwood. That's a pleasing thought.
Sounds like China and many other places in the world.

>> If all the people of earth were living in an area with the population
>> density of Hong Kong, they would fit in Mauritania. Population
>> density of Hong Kong 16,500/sq mile, 6 billion folks / 16,500 =
>> 410,000 sq mi required. Mauritania is about that size, as is Bolivia
>> and Ethiopia. You could fit ten times the earth's population in the
>> United States.

I also don't want to live at the horrific densities of Hong Kong - or
New York City, for that matter. Good God, man, do you not realize the
problems China (and others) have faced concerning overpopulation?
What kind of distopian future do you want your children to inherit?
And if I'd wanted to live like cattle in an AgriCorp facility I'd have
had Vishnu send me back as a cow.

Cripes. Timber, energy, food, water. Diseases proliferating and
adapting due to close proximity and monoculture. It's unholy, I tell
you. And what about open land? I personally like mountains, streams,
parks, trees, bears, butterflies, raccoons and birds. I wouldn't live
in a city for any amount of money.

A world without the variety of these natural things, dominated by
rats, roaches, crows and humans? Kill me now.


>> Therefore:
>>
>> Virtually every resource is more abundant today than it was in 1980.
>> See the Simon-Ehrlich Wager (Ehrlich of "The Population Bomb" book,
>> Julian Simon of "The Ultimate Resource").

Uh - the first book warned that we _would_ run out and was overly
dramatic. The other opined that we _would not_, and that rising prices
would reduce demand of certain commodities forcing development of
alternate resources and was overly optimistic. To some degree, they
were both wrong - and both right. We have become more efficient at
extracting resources, which has kept the prices down, but that doesn't
mean they are unlimited. Only that while there is profit to be made,
they will be removed until gone or too expense to extract - with
absolutely no thought of tomorrow. The corollary to this is that only
the rich will be able to enjoy what we take for granted today. It
takes a non-pine tree 100+ years to grow to the size of those we now
harvest. What do you think happened to all that old grown, tight
ringed southern yellow pine and oaks and cedars? We cut them down and
they are now gone. The elms and chestnuts devastated by disease. Do
you want to build your furniture from the bones of dead politicians
(don't tempt me...), old milk bottles, or two year fast growth SPF?
I don't. I also don't want future generations to eat soylent green.


>> Conclusion: We are running out of neither room nor resources and that
>> the fullness of time has proven wrong virtually every prediction of
>> the prophets of doom (global cooling, Malthusian theory, oil, etc.).

Timber, energy, food, water - all being stressed at this point. There
are many countries where famine and drought are commonplace. I'm not
claiming that we are on the precipice of disaster at this point in
this country - we are lucky enough to have stolen a lot of arable land
- but one chink in the weather, one year of out of season rains, cold
or even an asteroid strike would press the US's ability to provide
food to its own citizens, much less the rest of the world. This season
alone was a disaster for many farmers due to unusual torrential rains.
By most reasonable estimates we have already reached peak oil - even
if not we are damned close. Do you really think the stuff is unlimited
and never ending? If we've only used up 30% of the black gold, we did
so in a scant 100 years. As reserves are depleted they become far more
expensive to extract, meaning that, again, the wealthy will be the
only ones to enjoy that which we take for granted today. No commuting,
no cheap crap at WalMart, no black walnut to build your casket out of.


>So how much land does it take to feed all these people? Or are you one
>these damned fools who thinks that food appears by magic in grocery stores?

OK - What have you done with the real J.Clarke who was bitching about
my other post? Or are you his doppelganger?



Greg G.

LDosser said:

>"Greg G." <[email protected]> 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.

On Nov 9, 7:02=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > CW wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Geez, what do you folks do to the poor things? =A0My polycarbonate Wileys=
have
> lasted me three years now on a motorcycle.

Maybe you're a better rider.

My around-the-house pair is scratched because I keep dropping them.
My work pair is pretty good because they generally stay on my nose.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:58:13 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
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.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:31:20 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
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.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:55:07 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then
>>next
>>time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to standard
>>now.
>>Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.
>
> I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
> used to using them?

Seconds. Honest, my first pair were regular with the line type. I drove
home with them, sat down and read the newspaper easier than I had in months.
When I switched to progressive, it took about a day to get used to them for
everything, but it was easier using the computer than the regular bi-f's.

I hear stories that some people have problems though. With progressive, if
you don't like them, they will replace them at NC.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> diggerop wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
> ... snip
>>>
>>> In the US, we have 87% of people satisfied with their insurance. For
>>> 13%
>>> of our people, we are proposing a government takeover of 1/6 of the
>>> economy
>>> (the only way they will save money is by rationing) and spending over $2
>>> Trillion dollars in the next 10 years) -- and government programs never
>>> cost what they are originally projected nor deliver the results
>>> promised.
>>> Seems a steep price to pay.
>>>
>>
>> It will interest me greatly to see where it all ends up for the US.
>>
>
>
> ... and herein lies the heart of the issue. The statists often use the
> argument that the United States is the only industrialized country in the
> world that does not have socialized medicine and therefore we should get
> with it and join the rest of the industrialized, free and oppressed world
> in implementing it as well. I would turn that around and state that the
> United States is the only industrialized country in the world that has a
> free market in health care with which 87% of its citizens are satisfied
> with their health care. If elements of the remaining 13% are so intent on
> the need for a socialized system and feel so strongly that socialized
> medicine is so critical, I would suggest that they leave the remaining 87%
> alone and find one of the other industrialized countries with socialized
> medicine,
>

That would solve that problem. (We'd probably be glad to have a lot of them,
as long as they weren't lawyers.) Then the ones that don't like gun
ownership could also leave, along with those who object to the US being
involved militarily in other countries. Then there's the ones that want
nuclear disarmament and the ones that want freedom of choice on abortion,
the ones who feel they are over-taxed and under represented, the ones who
want even less government than you have now. Left leaning media
organisations could also follow suit along with all the greenies. Last but
not least, every registered Democrat. You could have a really good cleanout.
Sounds like utopia to me.


there are enough that they can pick the strength of flavor of
> socialism they desire and, along with their wealth and skills emigrate to
> that country where they can enjoy the benefits of the socialized health
> care system they so crave. I am sure that any of those countries would be
> more than happy to have productive, useful people add to their GDP. Why
> is
> it that people want to take away free choice from the only country that
> still has it?
>
I'm sympathetic to the freedom from government interference part of your
view, and also the unwillingness to give up freedom of choice. In a
nutshell, we managed to keep the parts that enable us to retain freedom of
choice. Government interference? It's their very nature and intended
purpose. - in all facets of life. Easily fixed if a majority want it that
way. Just abolish government and let your lives become an unfettered
free-for -all.

> ... snip of Australian medical advances
>
> Very good, although I think you might get some pushback on the penicillin
> credits -- Fleming of England discovered it and Florey's work was achieved
> at Oxford. I would also note that a significant number of those
> breakthroughs seem to have come before your 20 years ago comment about the
> start of socialized medicine.
>
>
We've had socialised healthcare since 1975, in various guises. Instituted
by the left, almost immediately partially dismantled by the right when they
gained office in the same year, re-named Medicare and it's 1975 components
re-instated when Labor won office again in 1984. The 20 years I referred to
was about when I still had the view that it was no good and unworkable.
Subsequent to that, my view began to shift. For about the last ten years,
the federal government has also encouraged private health fund membership
via a tax rebate of up to 30% of premiums.
Interestingly, had it been an election issue at the time it was instituted
it would have been soundly defeated. It was unpopular on both sides of the
electorate. Also, like most people, we hate change, simply because it is
change.

We're a very parochial lot, us Aussies. We'll fiercely claim as our own
anyone who can in any way be called an Aussie. As an example, we've had
elite athletes who were born and raised overseas
were fostered and developed in their field overseas, who then emigrated to
Australia and took out citizenship. Any achievement will then be trumpeted
as "Australian Champion ........"
On the other side of the coin, one of this year's Nobel Laureates was a
woman, born in Australia but living in the US and now an American citizen.
Our local newspaper saw no problem in reporting her win with the headline
"Australian wins Nobel Prize" : )

diggerop

Greg G. wrote:
>
> Controlling costs, believe it or not. Removing the impetus for fraud
> and unnecessary tests in order to pad bills, stuffing hospital beds to
> maintain a given profit margin, purchasing drugs at competitive rates.
> Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
> the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334.

Yep. But Canadians can pay much more for generic drugs. It averages out. For
example, one generic I take costs $8.00. It's available at a Canadian
pharmacy for $286.00.

> The final effect would be
> remove thousands of outstretched hands that expect a cut of the cash
> which flows through the health care system as it stands - which is the
> root cause of much of the objections heard today. Everything else is
> ginned up hysteria promoted by those who fear losing their cash cow.
> Health care is not an option - you cannot simply decide to forgo a
> purchase because you can't afford it as you can a new car or a
> tablesaw - unless death is a valid option for you. It is a captive
> market controlled by what is proving to be rank profiteers.

Maybe. But greed is good. The results of greed are better.

But the best is to vanquish your enemies and hear the lamentations of their
women.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:55:07 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then next
>> time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to standard now.
>> Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.
>
> I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
> used to using them?

My first pair of glasses were progressive bifocals, about 10 years ago.
They took about a week to get used to, on my third pair now, newer
prescriptions each take a bit of time to get used to, but not that bad.
I never had *normal* glasses before that.

My prescription is mainly for close up work though, with just a very
minor distance correction, so your mileage may vary.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

"Axel Grease" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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?
>
My bad. I should have phrased that better. Perhaps if I had said no direct
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

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.
>
> Last pair of Eyeglasses was $500 for a pretty basic frame and
> perscription trifocals.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
These places are all over the US:

http://www.twopair.com/

- Doug

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

Greg G. wrote:

> Timber, energy, food, water - all being stressed at this point. There
> are many countries where famine and drought are commonplace. I'm not
> claiming that we are on the precipice of disaster at this point in
> this country - we are lucky enough to have stolen a lot of arable land
> - but one chink in the weather, one year of out of season rains, cold
> or even an asteroid strike would press the US's ability to provide
> food to its own citizens, much less the rest of the world. This season
> alone was a disaster for many farmers due to unusual torrential rains.
> By most reasonable estimates we have already reached peak oil - even
> if not we are damned close. Do you really think the stuff is unlimited
> and never ending? If we've only used up 30% of the black gold, we did
> so in a scant 100 years. As reserves are depleted they become far more
> expensive to extract, meaning that, again, the wealthy will be the
> only ones to enjoy that which we take for granted today. No commuting,
> no cheap crap at WalMart, no black walnut to build your casket out of.
>
>

You make a good point about areas where famine and drought are commonplace.
But the fix is relatively easy - at least easy to say.

There has never been a famine in a democracy. Replace thugocracies,
monarchies, theocracies, etc., with democracies and the famine problem goes
away. As for droughts, this will be harder and require a change in the
area's economy. In areas where droughts are common, the area needs to give
up reliance on water for crops. That is, either change their crops from
watermelons to moss or quit farming altogether. If the latter, they will
have to import food from less radical climates.

In order to import food, they will need currency with which to buy it. That
means they'll have to export something or find ways of bringing exchange
currency to their country. Maybe they could mine for minerals or set up an
international vacation spot. To my knowledge, neither the Principality of
Monaco or the island of Hong Kong has farms nor mining enterprises, but they
seem to be doing okay.

As for running out of oil, reserves increase every year. Even if we did run
out, so what? The Romans denuded North Africa to make charcoal, then the
Europeans did the same to their forests. When wood got scarce, they turned
to coal. Coal fueled the industrial revolution until it became too expensive
relative to imported oil.

When oil gets too expensive, we'll find something else. We always have;
that's what humans do. We discover, we innovate, we improvise.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:49:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried really think that
> way? If so, this abomination of a health care bill would never have
> gotten as far as it has with polls showing a solid majority opposing it.


From USA Today:

"By 56%-33%, those surveyed endorse the idea of enacting major health
care changes this year. Just one in four say it's not important to them.

When it comes to financing the costs, six of 10 favor the idea of
requiring employers to provide health insurance for their workers or pay
a fee instead. Increasing income taxes on upper-income Americans, an
approach backed by House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.,
is endorsed by 58%. Just over half support taxing sugary soft drinks."

Now where do you get "a solid majority opposing it"?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:53:24 +0800, diggerop wrote:

> Not bad at all for a population of less than 7.5% of the US.

Damm it Digger, every time someone posts a rant, you dazzle'em with facts
- that's just not fair :-)

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

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?"



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>
> You obviously don't have the need for a full-lens prescription. I'm
> still very active and use every bit of it most minutes of the day.
> I spit on Varilux' grandmother's shadow.

With 20-400 vision. I only wear my glasses when I want to see. I even
wear them when I get up to pee in the middle of the night. Everyone is
different, but I like having the progressives.

DGDevin wrote:
>
> I wonder how many of the people who curse the "socialism" of various
> other national health care systems even know how they actually work?

> Is a system where people are free to choose their doctors etc. and
> where doctors work for themselves or a hospital actually "socialist"
> just because payment comes through govt.-administered insurance?

Sure. Socialism is not defined by the actions of the consumer - it is
defined by control over the means of production or service rendered.

> Is
> the govt. requiring private insurance companies to offer at least one
> policy meeting a minimum level of coverage "socialism"?

Um, not exactly. It IS over-regulation, though. An insurance policy is a
contract and the government should certainly have the means to enforce
contracts. But an agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller
should be, in the main, sacrosanct.

In your example, I have no problem with the government requiring an
insurance company to OFFER specific, minimum, coverage, but it doesn't stop
there. The government also wants to set the PRICE the insurance company can
charge - and that's the problem.

Anyone can get health coverage in the U.S. - they just can't get it at a
price they're willing to pay.


> Or is
> "socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of those who don't know
> how the rest of the world does it, they just know they don't like
> whatever it is?

That too.

"CW" <[email protected]> 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.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

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.

HeyBub wrote:

... snip
>
> 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.
>

... and even in non-free societies, this principle prevails, it just
doesn't redound to peoples' benefit. In a society being espoused here
where the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to
their need", the person with the ability is going to act in his own self
interest and not put forth any more effort than required to keep himself in
the good graces of the commissar and out of trouble. Why bother to pursue
excellence or make significant sacrifices only to see any resulting reward
mandatorily re-distributed to someone who either lacked the skill or
motivation to achieve? Same is true in a repressive society, people act in
self-preservation to keep themselves and their families safe. In both
these cases, these actions do not advance or elevate society, but they do
exhibit the fact that people always act to improve their own personal
condition.

The shining element of Smith's observation applied to a capitalist society
is that when those actions of self-interest allow people to reap the
benefits of their labors, all of society benefits. There will always be
people in society unable or unwilling to be successful and to some, bad
things just happen. However, that is where charitable acts and the
unforced generosity of those who are successful can come into play. In
some cases, an argument can be made for local government intervention to
alleviate such issues. Using the federal government however, to pluck the
fruits of peoples' labor to give to others, when taken to a certain level
will have the results identified above.



> Some people just need to keep up.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

diggerop wrote:

> Six inches? ......... That's not a knife! : )
>
> diggerop

Heh, a great scene.

"Rick Samuel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried really think
> that way? If so, this abomination of a health care bill would never
> have gotten as far as it has with polls showing a solid majority
> opposing it. With the direct taxation from the income tax, the
> near-certainty of incumbent re-election (strengthened through
> McCain-Feingold), you are electing aritocrats who intend to rule and
> intend to use bills like Pelosi-care and cap and tax to rule as much
> of citizens' personal lives as they can. They no longer view
> themselves as representatives of the people.

I suggest that Nancy Pelosi represents her San Francisco constituency
accurately.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.