(V): Also, it seems not as many are going naturally into the midwife profession. Despite there being plenty of room for new midwives, the recruitment rate for new midwives is down


ya think this has anything to do with the fact that they can earn more doing something else???

(V): why is there a crime called corporate manslaughter.

A crime is a crime..... you dont change a whole system, just enforce the laws already there to help.

Ferris Bueller: I can see your point, and agree with you, somewhat.... part of it is patriotic, and socialism is against everything that made our country great in the firsts place....but it doesnt change the fact that our government is a lot worse at running things than is our private industry, more government is NOT the answer

Pedro Martínez: Sorry, I did not read any of your links, so i will assume they are negative towards the US health care system.... but even so, it is not the ultimate dagger in our system as a whole.

But I can agree... there is something wrong with that ranking, it is disturbing to me!

Artful Dodger: Thats correct... Jules has consistently made the point that the US health care system is flawed, and uses our infant mortality rate as a good example... again, we are not perfect, but I dont believe we are as flawed as some may want to project.

(V): No Jules, you have always given some statistic about how the US ranks 30 something in the world in infant mortality rates

but if what AD has shown is true, they are comparing apples to oranges

Artful Dodger: Nice post AD... I never did challenge Vs assertions on this matter, but I always wondered how we could be so low on the list???

This makes a lot more sense to me now

Medicare sucks compared to private insurance, so the solution is to get everyone into the same crappy system, so at least we all get crappy care together????

Übergeek 바둑이: I am curious to know how coverage and waiting lists compare for people who receive Medicaid compared to those that have private insurance


It does not matter what type of coverage you have or if you have no coverage, the waiting time is the same for all groups.


This puts poor people at a disadvantage,


Well, if medicare puts poor people at a disadvantage, then why are we being pushed into more government sponsored care?

Übergeek 바둑이: It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.



I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage, but by access, he is referring to the amount of time it may take to get any specific treatment.

IE, if you are stuck on a long wait for a procedure in Canada, compared to the US, then he would argue that your access is an issue with your health care system, compared with the US

(V): Its not the fault of lobbyists that lobbying is a problem, its the fault of the government that lobbying is a problem

Übergeek 바둑이: Universities and colleges would be more accessible.


Well, if we could do it by spending less on some areas, IE war, then I do not have any problem, but right now, the plan is to do it with tax increases.

I would personally rather buy a new boat and enjoy what short time we have on this planet, then subsidize some kid going to college, but thats just me. But if anyone else feels different, then what is stopping them from sending the government more of their own money? I dont see any socialist liberals doing that, and because most of them dont mind soaking other peoples money

I see these hollywood liberal elite types all the time bitching and complaining about all types of crap, I can get by on 50K per year, but they are the ones who want us all to be the same, the poor shrinking middle class, those hypocrites could give all their millions they earn to make a film, all except 50K each, and you could pay for every kid in the country to go to school free!!! But you will never see them, or any of the Pelosis of the world, the ones who really care about the common people, you will never see tham give any of their power or money away!!!!

(V): Yes, less profit making... but I have no problem with profit making, in fact I like profit making, and it is profit making that makes economies grow, and I happen to like that, and believe thats what this world needs, and that your system only promotes stagnation and an average ho hum world with average ho hum people and we all just exist in this ho hum world until we die.

Not very exciting existence if you ask me

(V): Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments.

Whats wrong with that? Why should I be able to wait and buy a $1000 policy to cover my $100,000 treatment, after the fact that I learned I would need the treatment


Thats the whole game of insurance, isnt it? That they have to have some people who pay into it more than they get in return, so as to cover people who pay into it less than they get in return.

Übergeek 바둑이: Having lived in Canada, and having visited Europe many times I can say that the welfare state does lead to very high standards of living. Paying high taxes might be the drawback, but the quality of life seems to justify the taxation problem.


I dont think it does.... here in the US we already DO insure all of our citizens necessary health, education and social services Nobody is asking to change that, but what advantage do we gain by moving much further into socialism?

(V): provide core functions such as protection of persons and property, a legal system that helps with the enforcement of contacts, and a stable monetary regime,


I have already agreed to all this, but where does it say that this government must also supply health care and education and other social functions that you endorse?

Pedro Martínez: I know its a boring read...

Artful Dodger:

Bernice: Thanks.. at least now I am not the only one left wondering

(V): You may convince yourself that you have the best of all worlds, socialized government where nobody gets left behind, still with great economic growth, and excellent facilities, and somehow small government all at the same time, and if so, and it is all so grand, then why doesnt every socialist liberal in this country just move over there!

(V): And that part of what you posted from that link, was just a part and as such a distortion of the whole link, and therefore again... FALSE and INACCURATE.


It was your link., and you said it explained your point, but how can you say it is not accurate when it says that smaller governments created economic growth faster than larger governments??????

No I havent read the whole thing, but you can find me the part where it gives the exceptions, I guess you must have read that somewhere, it should be easy for you to site the exact part for me?

(V): IF you take a contract that requires you to have a fixed minimal term as part of that contract you are obliged under law to honour that contract



Thats true, I have not argued against that... except to say that the very first word is "if", but there is nobody to force me to make this contract agreement

But with socialism, I dont have a choice to opt out, the government takes my money, like it or not. You aften talk about how under your system of health care, people can get private if they desire and can afford to do so.... BUT, that doesnt negate their tax obligation that goes towards the social government care, now does it

So its not really a "choice", an either or, if you want private, then you have to pay for both

With your contract, I always have a choice to not enter that contract... see the difference?

(V): In some cases, governments are better, in some cases not.


Well, the part of that link I posted clearly states that smaller governments correlate into increased economicgrowth

(V): But nobody forces me to sign a contract in the first place!

gogul: What has to go down, goes down.

(V): You can be very agrivating sometimes....

The debate has always been about socialism vs capitalism..... I say socialism by its nature creates bigger government, and that I think bigger government is worse than big corporations....

You tried to say that... well I am not exactly sure what your point was, something about socialism making the government smaller?

Your own links support the idea that LESS government is good for the economy... in other words, capitalism is better for economic growth than is socialism.

We both agree that no government would not be a good thing, so the courts and military and roads etc. are all legit functions for government. But after that is where we begin to split in opinion. You like more and more left up to the government, IE education and health care and who knows where you draw the line?

My point was that the more you rely on your government, IE the bigger your government gets, the smaller your economic growth compared to some country who has a smaller government


....and as to your point about the private sector taking my money IF I HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM, is absurd, nobody will ever force you to have a contract, and its not that I dont want to live without anyone taking my money... its just that I want to be able to make my own choice who I give it to, and NOT have it taken by my government to do with it what they think is the best way to spend it on somebody else


If you know where I can get this island.... I would take that route in a heart beat, you would never hear from me again!

(V): Thats all great... I can agree with all of that.

BUT!!!!! None of that described is SOCIALISM

Roads, courts etc... I agree are good government functions, but there are many more places where the private sector is better at it, not to mention they dont forcefully take MY money to do it either!

(V): Here is the first thing I read, took about 10 seconds to find.....


The data in Exhibit 4 for OECD countries suggests that smaller government is correlated with faster rates of economic growth. While in theory government could be too small to provide the necessary environment for economic growth, the data in Exhibit 4 give no indication that any OECD government was excessively small at any time during 1960-96. Within the size of government range of this period, smaller government was consistently associated with more rapid economic growth.

(V): my understanding..... government runs things/socialism..... private sector runs things/capitalism

I am sure you will explain to me how wrong I am, and how increased socialism will decrease government?

(V): you can have a capitalist country and a big government.

Sure you can, I never said it was mutually exclusive..... but simply that the same capitalist country with a big government, would have an even bigger government if it were socialist

Socialism by its very nature creates more government than does capitalism.

gogul: ... and to think that the political powers in the US right now want nothing more than to emulate Europe and its socialists structures, and all the news we hear tells us how happy everyone in social land are, and how the rest of the world hates us capitalists, and if we just joined you all in your happy socialism, the world will suddenly be a better place to live.

I dont buy this crap, but most people do

gogul: I prefer big corporations over big governments.


Big corporations are a side effect of capitalism, while big government is a side effect of socialism....

What is your solution, to prosper and have at the same time no nasty corporations of corrupt government?

gogul: To be elitary means to be a abuser.

Do you not consider the Bono's (U2 band leader) of the world to be elitists as well?

gogul: We have to keep our economy rolling by producing what we need, obviously food and water. Of both we have enough recources to poison all oceans with corn.


This I had to paste, just because it made me LOL!!!

Übergeek 바둑이: Maybe we should appoint Cheech and Chong as ministers of the environment!


yeah... and maybe they can tell me why my crop is so bad this year?

(V): The only new scheme is to use breeze blocks as the inner wall


as a plaster/paint contractor, i want to know more about what is a breeze block?

Übergeek 바둑이: We pollute a lot more than China does,


REALLY???

gogul: WOW! You want to blame China??? Its so funny, the America haters (jealous) seem to forget about any other world problems, you never hear the media or anyone else, its all just America blah blah blah....

Übergeek 바둑이: First, what causes capitalism? People do. Wars are fought due to the greed for wealth and power.


Yikes! 34 new posts and this is the first two lines I read???

First, capitalism is not something that is "caused"...

Second, Why wars are fought cannot be so easily generalized

Sometimes wars are fought in defense of something, so you may start one with me because you are greedy for wealth, but my war is in defense of you, I am NOT fighting a war for greed or wealth, merely survival.


(thats all I got right now, since I have many posts to read and respond to)

rod03801: Thanks Rod, for the back up!

(V): and.... you asked where I got the idea it was a civil war, and I showed you where, thats all

(V): http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/ireland1968.htm

Tuesday: wht do we have to lose by believing what I think is right lol.


Thats the beauty, you have nothing to lose, really, except maybe a lot of wasted time, but you do not consider it time wasted, so that doesnt count either, and the benefit is that you will always try to do what is right, except, what about if you kill and terrorize others because they dont have the same faith as you, then you have a lot to lose because of your religion

(V): This is what those who've never been in such a situation don't understand about wars on terror. The Northern Ireland situation went on for decades. An attack could happen at any time anywhere in the UK. Those fighting had no uniform, just their cause.




I dont buy any analogy between the war on terror and the civil war in north ireland.....what because they had no uniforms, and were fighting for a cause???? There were actual people who could sit down to reach a civil agreement, but not on the war on terror.... who do we get to have this conversation with to end the war on terror peacefully???? I can agree that there needs to be other fronts besides just killing them and shutting down their camps. more pro active and peaceful ways, but its rubbish to say that armys have no purpose and can have substitutes in every instance.

gogul: One of your best posts.....

(V): So much covering death I believe is the church's fault...


Funny... I have always felt that religion made us fear death less, that we had a better place waiting for us? Since I personally have no beliefs like this, death is something that I am not looking forward to.... and I believe the big draw of religion is the "afterlife"... the "eternity" that people crave (not to mention all the virgins)

Maybe what we need is a stock market for carbon foot prints, where those of us who have a very small one can sell what we dont produce to someone who over produces on an open market

(V): So what is a zero carbon footprint worth these days, in dollars, and who decides this, and how come the government can sell and keep the cash for my personal carbon foot print, shouldnt I have the right to sell my own and keep the cash?

(V): Its two different arguments..... you made a statement that he had ignored some evidence, but until your recent post, you never gave any evidence that he had. I only claimed to agree with his thesis, there is a difference.