Home Page link

20 Years

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 4 of 10       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
20 Years Michael Bulatovich 06-09-2007
| ---> Re: 20 Years Michael Bulatov...06-10-2007
| |   ---> Re: 20 Years Michael Bulatov...06-10-2007
| |       |--> Re: 20 Years Michael Bulatov...06-11-2007
| |       `--> Re: 20 Years =?ISO-8859-1?Q?...06-11-2007
| |--> Re: 20 Years Michael Bulatov...06-12-2007
| |--> Re: 20 Years =?ISO-8859-1?Q?...06-15-2007
| ---> Re: 20 Years =?ISO-8859-1?Q?...06-15-2007
| |--> Re: 20 Years =?ISO-8859-1?Q?...06-15-2007
| |--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-17-2007
| |--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-17-2007
| |--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-17-2007
| ---> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-23-2007
| |     `--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-19-2007
| | `--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-20-2007
| ---> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-19-2007
| |       |--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-16-2007
| |       |--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-16-2007
| |       `--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-16-2007
|         `--> Re: 20 Years Kris Krieger07-17-2007
  |--> Re: 20 Years Michael Bulatov...06-11-2007
  `--> Re: 20 Years =?ISO-8859-1?Q?...06-11-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 17, 2007, 1:18 am

>> "Pat"> wrote
>>> We tried the "all private sector" approach before and found it
>>> didn't work as well as we had hoped.
>>
>> It worked very well, when the gov't was not involved with it.
>> My mom and dad somehow managed to raise 5 kids to adulthood without
>> health insurance on them and only had one doctor the whole time.
>> One doctor.
>> He did everything from birthing babies to childhood innoculations,
>> rabies shots, set bones, yanked tonsils, sewed stitches, the whole 9
>> yards. And through all of it my dad paid out of pocket for the stuff
>> on the spot. My dad was a self employed carpenter and my mom was a
>> stay at home. This was in a small town in PA, circa 50's & 60's.
>>
>> Look what you have now.
>> And you call this better?
>>
>
> Hmm I wonder how well a black person was taken care of back in the
> 50s.

You're mixing the issues.

Don is not saying that "equal access to healthcare is bad", he is saying
that "the forceable insertion of HMO and gov.t bureaucracies into teh
doctor-patient relationship is bad".

Prejudice (be it racial or other) is/was in no way eliminated just
because gov.t got involved in health care.


> Feel free to live back then if you like with blinders and
> everything if need be. I'm sure me with my brown skin I would have
> all the opportunities you had back then, so why wouldn't I want to
> live in such a WONDERFUL era?

But you're mixing two different points. This is not about "turning back
the clock across the board", this i sabout reducing bureaucratic waste,
and getting teh middlemen out from between health care providers, and
health care recipients.

Regardelss of your color (or religion or gender or sexual preference or
size or whatever), the fact is that currently, if your physician
determines you should have, oh, a colonoscopy or a mammogram, there is a
bureuacracy acting as a gatekeeper standing between you, and what your
physician prescribes, and you either will or will not be *permitted* to
follow the doctor's orders based upon a bunch of statistics and whatnot
as interpreted by someone who quite likely lives a thousand miles away
from you and your physician.

And if you believe that bureaucracy is going to go to any effort to make
sure that your case is not going to be judged inequitably, well......


>
> Hmm if one person, among many, is delusional it makes sense that they
> would think everyone else but them is.
>

I'm personally *sick* of all of this childish name-calling about who is
or is not delusional. Good grief =>:-p

EVERYBODY is "delusional" in one way or another. Get over it. What
matters is (1) trying to get the facts and (2) trying to avoid trampling
people's rights.



Posted by Edgar on July 17, 2007, 11:35 am
>
>>> "Pat"> wrote
>>>> We tried the "all private sector" approach before and found it
>>>> didn't work as well as we had hoped.
>>>
>>> It worked very well, when the gov't was not involved with it.
>>> My mom and dad somehow managed to raise 5 kids to adulthood without
>>> health insurance on them and only had one doctor the whole time.
>>> One doctor.
>>> He did everything from birthing babies to childhood innoculations,
>>> rabies shots, set bones, yanked tonsils, sewed stitches, the whole 9
>>> yards. And through all of it my dad paid out of pocket for the stuff
>>> on the spot. My dad was a self employed carpenter and my mom was a
>>> stay at home. This was in a small town in PA, circa 50's & 60's.
>>>
>>> Look what you have now.
>>> And you call this better?
>>>
>>
>> Hmm I wonder how well a black person was taken care of back in the
>> 50s.
>
> You're mixing the issues.
>
> Don is not saying that "equal access to healthcare is bad", he is saying
> that "the forceable insertion of HMO and gov.t bureaucracies into teh
> doctor-patient relationship is bad".
>
> Prejudice (be it racial or other) is/was in no way eliminated just
> because gov.t got involved in health care.
>
>
>> Feel free to live back then if you like with blinders and
>> everything if need be. I'm sure me with my brown skin I would have
>> all the opportunities you had back then, so why wouldn't I want to
>> live in such a WONDERFUL era?
>
> But you're mixing two different points. This is not about "turning back
> the clock across the board", this i sabout reducing bureaucratic waste,
> and getting teh middlemen out from between health care providers, and
> health care recipients.
>

I stand by my point, GOVERNMENT (not beauracracy) has worked towards (and is
bound by) equality, and people have fought long and hard to get that
equality which has not come easy. To say that things were better back then
because the government was not involved ignores the thousands of people who
were NOT getting the same level of care because of inequality. If we have
to bring others down so that others may FINALLY be equal, so be it. Since
then we should have been working on bringing everyone back up, but instead
inequality continues. I agree 100% with reducing bureaucratic waste but
that waste is not the same as what the govenrment should be.

> Regardelss of your color (or religion or gender or sexual preference or
> size or whatever), the fact is that currently, if your physician
> determines you should have, oh, a colonoscopy or a mammogram, there is a
> bureuacracy acting as a gatekeeper standing between you, and what your
> physician prescribes, and you either will or will not be *permitted* to
> follow the doctor's orders based upon a bunch of statistics and whatnot
> as interpreted by someone who quite likely lives a thousand miles away
> from you and your physician.
>
> And if you believe that bureaucracy is going to go to any effort to make
> sure that your case is not going to be judged inequitably, well......
>

You yourself are confusing the issue. Government is not the same as
bureaucratic (I always have trouble spelling that one). You can have one
without the other, and we should be working towards eliminating beauracracy.
I agree it is the worst thing about this government and something I feel
should be eliminated if we want to fix anything.

>
>>
>> Hmm if one person, among many, is delusional it makes sense that they
>> would think everyone else but them is.
>>
>
> I'm personally *sick* of all of this childish name-calling about who is
> or is not delusional. Good grief =>:-p
>
> EVERYBODY is "delusional" in one way or another. Get over it. What
> matters is (1) trying to get the facts and (2) trying to avoid trampling
> people's rights.
>
>

As long as Don is here, your going to keep getting "sick" of it. I only
resort to what is thrown at me. I've tried and tried with the level headed
discussion, but this is the only type of argument he seems to
understand...YOU get over it.

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Posted by Edgar on July 17, 2007, 4:50 pm
>
>> If we have to bring others down so that others may FINALLY be equal, so
>> be it.
>
> Only an immature, horrible person could say such a thing.
>
>

Taken out of context like that of course it sounds horrible, like the cunt
you are, you can twist my words all you want, but it doesn't mean a damn
thing near what your shit for brains thinks it means.

Unless you really do prefer the past where minorities were treated like
second class citizens, you can take it for all I care, there are plenty of
countries out there where people would happily slit your throat for being
"different".

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Posted by Edgar on July 17, 2007, 5:57 pm
>
>>>
>>>> If we have to bring others down so that others may FINALLY be equal, so
>>>> be it.
>>>
>>> Only an immature, horrible person could say such a thing.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Taken out of context like that of course it sounds horrible,
>
> You're full of shit Edgar, and you have socialist tendencies.
> You want to force others to do your bidding and it shows in your posts.
>
> None squeals so loud as the socialist forced to live under his own rules.
>

Blah blah blah...duh here let me use someone elses words to try and discuss
with people.

Um, please show me WHERE exactly I have ever said I don't want to live under
my own rules??? In fact I get derided every time I explain I have no
problems paying for taxes to help other people etc, etc. If I wanted to own
a gun, I would happily take a training course, just like I did trying to get
my drivers license. Your limbaugh sound bites won't help you here.

And on the other hand I have consistently shown how pure socialism is just
as bad as pure capitalism or anarchy, and again your shit for brains never
has a decent answer to any of that either, just spouting off bullshit and
flaming because someone is taking your toys (oh noes they stepped on my lawn
I will kill the bastards!). When your challenged all you do is come back
with flaming...the defenition of a troll.

I really don't know what sort of mental deficiency you have there Don, but
it's starting to get irritating. A little disclosure would help, starting
with the types of meds you're on.

Ok lets hear it, what's the next insult going to be? I know it's coming
because you have nothing of substance to say. Here let me help
you..."Duh...little doodz, go watch your tee vee and leavez us alonz, or
sumfink"



--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Posted by 3D Peruna on July 18, 2007, 11:04 am
Edgar wrote:

> I stand by my point, GOVERNMENT (not beauracracy) has worked towards (and is
> bound by) equality, and people have fought long and hard to get that
> equality which has not come easy. To say that things were better back then
> because the government was not involved ignores the thousands of people who
> were NOT getting the same level of care because of inequality. If we have
> to bring others down so that others may FINALLY be equal, so be it. Since
> then we should have been working on bringing everyone back up, but instead
> inequality continues. I agree 100% with reducing bureaucratic waste but
> that waste is not the same as what the govenrment should be.

Equality is a myth. It always has been. Nobody is born "equal". Some
are born smart, some dumb, some blind, some deaf, some crippled, you
name it. Some born in the USA to affluent parents, other born into
starvation in the Andes. Life is not equal. Nor will it ever by and to
think that "equality" is a laudable goal shows a lack of understanding
of human nature.

Governments cannot and should not try to create "equality". They
shouldn't even try for "fairness." If you want to think that "equality"
is granted or created by government, go back and reading the Federalist
papers, and the writings of the Founders. The only thing we have equal
is the opportunity to pursue our happiness without interference from
government. It's the opportunity to pursue happiness that is to be
protected and guarded, not the happiness itself. As long as our pursit
does not infringe on the natural rights* of others, then we're good to go.

*Natural Rights
(http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/bogus.html):
Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of
our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision,
declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit
of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can
delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have
a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess
that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By
contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one
person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate
such authority to government.


Page 4 of 10       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Two years and one month ago December 9, 2007, 7:42 pm
Re: New Years Resolutions. December 30, 2008, 7:45 pm
After these many years, shuld I forget the question ---- July 16, 2007, 11:23 am
Cyburbia: urban planning community - now 13 years old! October 9, 2007, 1:27 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap