|
| |
|  
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
 | | Re: It didn't have to be this way....
|
| (...) (URL) read. One thought I have though... Would the situation truly be any better if Sadam had got out of power any other way? Part of what is happening is the power vacuum that results from elimination of a despot. The rest of the problem is (...) (20 years ago, 12-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Might the logical conclusion instead be that there should be no money at all, without niggling about public vs. private? I don't suggest that I have a fully fleshed-out alternative to offer, but it seems clear that the consensual hallucination (...) (20 years ago, 7-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Maybe the nature of "routine things" is the issue. Is a small but stitch-worthy laceration routine? How about a broken leg? Anyway, we *all* require that someone else pay for things that we consider routine, present company included. Why (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Have you thought through to the logical conclusion of the path you're following? The logical conclusion is that there should be no private money at all. But then that raises an interesting question: Who decides what is reasonable to spend (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) At what point do you put your libertarian ideals aside? I mean you do pay taxes, and those taxes are used for infrastructure and for protection. Some of your tax money goes to roads, most of which you will never use, but that's okay, 'cause (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Well, for millennia we've lived under a system that allocates resources to the economically or militarily powerful, so naturally there's a huge inequity re: who "owns" the resources. If we can fix that inequity, then we can address the others. (...) (20 years ago, 7-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Sure! Here's one example, but there are many: The computer you're using is descended from publicly funded technology for which you have not paid but from which you are reaping the benefit; this is income redistribution that favors you. The (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) There's a guy in my office who exhibits all sorts of gay behavior all day long. He sits in his cube, and he's gay. He pours himself some coffee, and he's gay. He leaves the office at the end of the day, and he's gay. It's like he doesn't even (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.332)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) But underlying technology is only one aspect. If any of the designers (at MS, Intel, or wherever) went to a public school or received a government grant for college or for subsequent research, then you are benefitting from public money. I (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.331)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) That's kind of how the knucklehead had characterized it. In my view, it's a question of most-widespread benefit. If 90% of the population has access to good health care, then that's great, even if access to certain procedures is limited. On (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.331)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Sure, but today my access to certain procedures is limited by my income and my insurance, so I don't know that it's any better in practice. (...) Well, then we're back to the brain surgeon vs. hole-digger, aren't we? (...) Yeah, I'm not sure (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.331)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) It would depend on which procedures, right? This columnist is no doubt biased and has chosen a nice sounding factoid from a friendly source: (URL) Fraser Institute points out that patients in that country (which is still held up as a model for (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.331)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) I'd say our system is more "socalist" than "communist." Oddly enough, I had an MRI last night (I hurt my arm playing tennis, but an insane specialist wants to make sure I didn't have a stroke. What!?!?). I had one last week, too and I have (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.331)
|
|
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) I'm not sure our health care system is communist but its free*. A long wait for an MRI is not uncommon. This is due to the lack of facilities. Several private clinics have opened where you can have one done but you have to pay big bucks. (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.331)
|
|
| | Re: Can it really be true?
|
| (...) Typical European over-simplification of a complex issue. Sure, the "breeding ground" is one benefit, but you're forgetting the huge oil and reconstruction contracts. Cheney has to secure his yearly, non-conflict-of-interest salary, after all. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.331)
|
