Mike, The list seems to have become more political lately. I think your comments about dishonest people or something set this thread off. Not your fault, if I recall and I'm not worried about going back to find derail point. Don't worry about it, personally. I worry about it for the group when too much "non-Linux" and "non-group" talk goes on, we lose people. Alan On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM, mike havens wrote: > my announcement that I'm coming back to Phoenix turned into this? Alan, I > didn't have any idea the news I was returning would become so devisive.. > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Lyle Tuttle wrote: >> >> At 02:35 PM 8/2/2009, you wrote: >> >> One of the 2 former posts is typical "party diatribe"; you decide which! >> >> The irony of no health care in our economy is that unless you >> constantly replace people (who die, fail to make it in employment or >> become homeless)  [while also keeping the subset of "healthy" >> individuals completely separate] you win. >> >> The benefit of socialized health care includes research and >> statistics, eradication of diseases like STD's, TB and childhood >> illness, and control of the flu, and geratric survivial (which assists >> our children's children socially).  The system can support it, and in >> 20 years the benefits in advances in technology, industry and spcial >> stability are incredible. >> >> It's humane, and it's required to eradicate smoking, drug and alcohol >> abuse (often self medication for physical and emotional illness) >> alone. >> >> All systems in our society are inefficient - that doesn't mean we >> don't need IT systems for instance, it means we need EFFICIENCY >> (Canada as an example). >> My father would turn over in his grave, since he also wanted a free >> economy, but would agree that people are worth health care. >> >> If we REALLY  want to do better with health care, instead of spending >> trillions of dollars to [blatant party diatribe follows] counsel you on how >> to end your life (yes, the new plan proposes to do that if you are 65+ every >> 5 years - mandatory), [end, blatant party diatribe] why not spend some money >> here? >> >> http://www.canaryfoundation.org/index.cfm >> >> lyle >> >> >> Now, border control is another issue entirely! >> >> >> On 8/2/09, Craig White wrote: >> > On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 19:16 -0700, Vaughn Treude wrote: >> >> Lisa Kachold wrote: >> >> > On 7/30/09, JD Austin wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> The 'other' model isn't working any better.  My wife works in an >> >> >> Urgent >> >> >> Care; tons of Canadians come here to get the health care they need. >> >> >> I >> >> >> think >> >> >> the whole industry needs to be more competitive; most things in >> >> >> health >> >> >> care >> >> >> shouldn't cost what they do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Inefficiency in preventative care, diagnostics, errors in surgery, >> >> > the >> >> > truth is incredibly expensive. >> >> > >> >> > But just because Canadians come here for care doesn't mean it's not >> >> > working. >> >> > >> >> >> >> If by "working", you mean the majority of Canadians people accept it, >> >> and even think it's a good thing, I suppose it is. They're just very >> >> lucky they have a "safety valve", that is, a large semi-free country >> >> whose borders are within 100 miles of 90% of their population. >> >> Single-payer is, IMHO, the biggest piece of economic foolishness ever >> >> devised. Let's give an absolute monopoly to the most inefficient, >> >> corrupt organization ever invented by humans (government.) As for the >> >> notion that socialized medicine is cheaper, I don't believe it for a >> >> second. Governments can shift their costs to other agencies; the >> >> Pentagon does it all the time. I assume, for example, the cost of >> >> having >> >> "premiums" collected by the CRA doesn't get counted in the balance >> >> sheet. Not to mention the fact that a huge portion of the overhead >> >> costs >> >> of private insurers in the US is red tape imposed by government >> >> bureaucracies. >> >> Not that I'm necessarily endorsing the current system. There were a lot >> >> of good not-for-profit medical insurers in this country until Richard >> >> Nixon changed the tax laws, causing a massive takeover by greedy HMO's. >> >> I'd like to see a system of decentralized medical cooperatives with >> >> for-profit companies as a supplement. >> >> BTW, I don't blame the immigrants, but I do blame the lawyers. :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> No offense, just my two cents. :-) >> >> There, I feel so much better. >> >> Vaughn >> > ---- >> > seeing as how the political discussions do not die off, I am going to >> > sound off here. >> > >> > The entire premise of the Canadian health care system was to provide a >> > single tier of medical coverage for all and no amount of wealth would >> > provide a better level of health care. You cannot devise a system that >> > is more fundamentally fair to everyone. >> > >> > The people who come here from Canada are doing elective surgeries either >> > not covered by the health care system in Canada or prioritized in a >> > manner that does not suit the person with money to pay elsewhere. >> > >> > The language that you use Vaughn is loaded and inaccurate... >> > - we are not a safety valve, we provide elective medical care to those >> > who want to pay and go elsewhere. >> > >> > - the issue of a monopolized health care run by the government happens >> > to be that which is practiced in all other western nations. We spend >> > more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation and >> > yet approximately 25% of our citizens do not have coverage. >> > >> > - the insurance companies do worse managing the health care than >> > government could ever do. They practice murder by spreadsheet. They >> > invent rules for exclusions. Someone in this country WITH health >> > insurance goes bankrupt in this country every 30 seconds because of >> > exclusions, deductibles, etc. >> > >> > - blaming the government red tape for the profits of insurers is absurd >> > to its core. >> > >> > An American citizen visiting Canada can get free health care if needed. >> > >> > Any solution short of single-payer will fail and we will be back here >> > again, with more people excluded from coverage by insurance companies, >> > more people bankrupted by illness only because the companies with >> > profits at stake...insurance companies and drug companies will spend >> > unreasonable amounts of money to influence public opinion and elected >> > candidates. >> > >> > Craig >> > >> > >> > -- >> > This message has been scanned for viruses and >> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> > believed to be clean. >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------- >> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> > >> >> >> -- >> http://linuxgazette.net/165/kachold.html >> (623)239-3392 >> (503)754-4452 www.obnosis.com >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > > -- > :-)~MIKE~(-: > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss