"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...
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. Or don't you vote?


Heh. Who was it that said that something along the lines of "One of the
problems of democracy is every time we vote, we elect a politician." ?

A very cynical diggerop

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. Or don't you vote?

No, we elect the government, which then goes on doing what it has always
been doing.

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. Or don't you vote?


I didn't vote for any of the herd of czars:

http://www.infowars.com/senior-democ...onstitutional/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

When you can no longer hold the paper far enough from your face to
read it, you get bifocals, then ultimately trifocals.

Don't really need reading glasses, and can see to drive during the
daytime without glasses, but the dimmer the light, the more nearsighted
I become.

Have a pair of trifocals that were relegated to the shop for a long
time. After breaking my old single vision glasses about 18 months,
switched to the trifocals and have been wearing them exclusively.

I can finally say that I've gotten used to them ... except for watching
TV anyway but sitting upright in a straight backed chair.



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:37:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:



These days, you would have a hard time trying to get plastic eyeglass
lenses that don't have scratch coating. It's pretty much standard.

Yea, standard if you ask for it. Every place I've seen around here it's an
added cost option.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:28:16 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


wrote:

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

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

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.


The more nearsighted you become, the further away you have to hold something
to be able to see it.

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:58:42 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:37:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

These days, you would have a hard time trying to get plastic eyeglass
lenses that don't have scratch coating. It's pretty much standard.
Yea, standard if you ask for it. Every place I've seen around here it's an
added cost option.


Nope. If someone is charging you extra for scratch coating, walk out
and go elsewhere. I have news for you. If you don't order that extra
cost option, the lenses will still have it. The thing to avoid is the
optional anti-glare coating. That is an extra cost option, which they
put on OVER the scratch coating, and it's not scratch resistant.

That is why I get "glasses" not "plastics", with the anti-glare coating
on my glasses I find I no longer need to have sun glasses, or those
silly clipon things.

--
Froz...


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

wrote in :

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:00:24 -0800, "CW"
wrote:
The more nearsighted you become, the further away you have to hold
something to be able to see it.


You have that backwards. The reason old folks get reading glasses is
because they become more FAR sighted.


They also become more hind-sighted as they get older.

Puckdropper

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...


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".]

The above almost exactly typifies what I was saying 20 years ago - and
believed. Passionately. However, the world didn't end, Australia continues
to prosper and we are still only spending 9% of GDP on health care under
government control.
I preface the following by saying that I understand that none of it may have
any relevance to the US situation, - just sharing my experience and point of
view.
What caused me to change my view? It wasn't my concern for the health and
well being of my fellow man. (I'm truly not that nice a human being.) It
was economic benefits, something I haven't seen raised in this debate.
Sick people can't produce wealth and pay taxes. Those who can afford to,
will generally care for their health and remain productive longer and return
to the workforce sooner. People without the means will not seek medical
intervention until they are at crisis level and perhaps not even then.
It becomes a chronic cycle. They fall by the wayside. Also, in my private
view, that contributes to crime by the desperate and underprivileged.
Government control of the system has seen a huge swing in emphasis, from the
treatment of acute symptoms, which is what occurred under the private
system, to preventative medicine as a large part of the mix. That has and
will continue to do, more towards lowering costs than anything along with
the spin off of increased output per capita.
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.
Financially, my income is far better than it has ever been. I still have
every single one of the freedoms I had before. My fellow citizens are
healthier overall because of it and therefore, so is the state of the
nation. For 9% of GDP, against your 15%.

Maybe we're just cleverer. ; )

Overall, on reflection, I think that what I did give up, was merely an
illusion.


diggerop

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:58:42 -0800, "CW"

wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:37:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

These days, you would have a hard time trying to get plastic
eyeglass
lenses that don't have scratch coating. It's pretty much
standard.
Yea, standard if you ask for it. Every place I've seen around
here it's an added cost option.


Nope. If someone is charging you extra for scratch coating,
walk out
and go elsewhere. I have news for you. If you don't order that
extra
cost option, the lenses will still have it. The thing to avoid
is the
optional anti-glare coating. That is an extra cost option,
which they
put on OVER the scratch coating, and it's not scratch
resistant.

That is why I get "glasses" not "plastics", with the anti-glare
coating on my glasses I find I no longer need to have sun
glasses, or those silly clipon things.


Over the past 2 months, I had both cataracts replaced with the
inserted lens'. The ones I got are called Restore, and like most
nowadays, have a built-in UV coating to stop ultraviolet light.
What's cooler is that they are also a yellow color and block a lot
of the blue light as well, like the natural lens. The result is
that I have built-in sunglasses. Of course, there's always a
downside, and the lens' don't let in as much light as one without
the blue blocker, but it is supposed to also help prevent macular
degeneration.

Now, if they only could act as safety glasses in the shop. sigh
FWIW, I wore glass glasses since second grade, and that was a LONG
time ago. During my teen years, I was drilling a pilot hole for a
screw with a 1/8" bit. The bit broke and I suddenly had a line
across my glasses. The bit had hit exactly in the center,
breaking the lens. I can't imagine what it'd have done to my eye.
Years later: over 40 years to be exact, I was preparing to drill
a 1/8" hole in some angle iron on my drill press. Years earlier,
I'd given up the glasses for contact lenses, and then after LASIK
surgery, had done away with corrective lenses entirely. I always
remembered the incident as a teen, though I'd become very lax in
wearing safety glasses for most actions. In this case, I stopped
what I was doing and got my safety glasses out of the tool box.
They were almost crusted with dust, so I went to the shop sink and
washed them off.

When I started drilling, I pressed too hard and the drill bit
shattered. As you may have guessed, there was a smack on my
safety glasses and a divot appeared right in the center of where
my pupil was (safely) behind the safety glasses.


--
Nonny

You cannot make a stupid kid smart by
handing him a diploma. Schools need standards
to measure the amount of education actually
absorbed by children. Don't sacrifice the smart
kids to make the dumb ones feel good about themselves.

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.


Therefo

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.

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.

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

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

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

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:18:33 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
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?

Ovey!

Mark

CW wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:37:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:



These days, you would have a hard time trying to get plastic eyeglass
lenses that don't have scratch coating. It's pretty much standard.

Yea, standard if you ask for it. Every place I've seen around here
it's an added cost option.

The Chinese include it in their 8 buck glasses.

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.

On Nov 10, 1:00*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:00:24 -0800, "CW"
wrote:





wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:28:16 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

wrote:

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

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

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

The more nearsighted you become, the further away you have to hold something
to be able to see it.

You have that backwards. The reason old folks get reading glasses is
because they become more FAR sighted.

Not really more far-sighted, rather less near-sighted. The normal
focal length doesn't change much but the ability to change focus does
(and fast, in my case).

BTW, my brother's normal focus has always been "past infinity". I
always thought that was pretty far-sighted. ;-)

"diggerop" wrote:

Do you have a photo you can post Lew?

http://tinyurl.com/yal9unm

Lew

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


I've stay out of most of these political threads, but I have noticed the
above to be true. I think these guys really get off on talking down to
you and targeting you with the ad hominems.

It gets old fast and I think they need new picture to jerk off to. :-)



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

- Eleanor Roosevelt

I'm stealing this... thank you.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:55:07 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
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.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
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?


Of course not, it comes by truck.

I've heard various figures that range from we are approaching the limit to
we can double population easily. I don't have any idea myself, but the
problem is not so much resources, but the location of them. We have plenty
of water, just not in the places we need it. I think we'd be at least
somewhat self limiting though as either war over food or some natural
catastrophe would severely cut back the population.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
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?


Of course not, it comes by truck.

I've heard various figures that range from we are approaching the
limit to we can double population easily. I don't have any idea
myself, but the problem is not so much resources, but the location of
them. We have plenty of water, just not in the places we need it.
I think we'd be at least somewhat self limiting though as either war
over food or some natural catastrophe would severely cut back the
population.

Something will limit the population. There's no question of that.
Personally I'd rather it be people voluntarily taking pills than
involuntarily having nukes dropped on their heads.

wrote in message
The thing to avoid is the
optional anti-glare coating. That is an extra cost option, which they
put on OVER the scratch coating, and it's not scratch resistant.


The AR coating makes a difference for vision at times. No reflections and
better night vision when driving. I'm willing to pay for the benefits, at
least for my prescription.

-MIKE- said:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


I've stay out of most of these political threads, but I have noticed the
above to be true. I think these guys really get off on talking down to
you and targeting you with the ad hominems.

I believe part of the issue is that in 7 years, I have seen a dozen or
so woodworking related posts by Tim. A floor question, couple of
jokes, a Norm thread... He may have posted more, but I've not seen
very many. I'm not speaking for the group, but when he shows up and
participates in primarily political posts and presents views which are
most decidedly of a partisan slant, it seems to offend some of the old
timers and they may consider him a troll.

The use of he/him/old timers not intended as a backhanded slam.
Gotta be PC - you betcha.

For that matter, I've been absent for a few years myself and am
currently guilty of the same.

It gets old fast and I think they need new picture to jerk off to. :-)

Now, now. Let's not go there...

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

I'm still trying to get over the fact that Tim used a Roosevelt quote.
Will wonders never cease? Maybe it's not too late to convert him into
one of those "greedy self-serving liberals who pander to crack whores
on welfare." ;-) He could well become a Kucinich acolyte.


Greg G.

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.

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.

"Greg G." wrote:

He could well become a Kucinich acolyte.


Careful what you say about Dennis the menace.

I still remember his term as mayor.

Lew

diggerop wrote:

What caused me to change my view? It wasn't my concern for the health
and well being of my fellow man. (I'm truly not that nice a human
being.) It was economic benefits, something I haven't seen raised
in this debate. Sick people can't produce wealth and pay taxes. Those
who can afford to, will generally care for their health and remain
productive longer and return to the workforce sooner. People without
the means will not seek medical intervention until they are at crisis
level and perhaps not even then.

That IS an excellent point. In the U.S., several private companies provide
both the facilities and incentives for their employees to remain healthy.
Free counseling and check-ups, exercise rooms or gym memberships, bonuses if
the employee gives up smoking or loses weight, and so forth. Virtually all
the companies that have such benevolent programs are privately owned.

This is not the norm, however, in that for most corporations it's cheaper to
fire the slaggards and hire replacements.

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, there are many motivations, some of which cause eyebrows to shoot up!

Consider Jonas Salk, peering through the microscope throughout countless
nights and weekends. He was, without doubt, motivated by the HATE of seeing
children in iron lungs, by PRIDE in thinking "If I can solve this, people
will give me the recognition I crave," by out-and-out GREED in that "I'll
make enough money to do the kind of research I want to do without having to
suck-up to administrators and bureaucrats!" and by envy of that goddamn
Albert Sabin who's getting all the press.

By a combination of altruism and venality, we've eradicatd Polio in my
lifetime - except in areas run by Islamic extremists (and I was around in
1976 when Smallpox disappeared). I've lived in fortunate times.

Lew Hodgett said:

"Greg G." wrote:

He could well become a Kucinich acolyte.

Careful what you say about Dennis the menace.

I still remember his term as mayor.

I didn't know you were from Cleveland.
I have a nurse fried who lives there.
He has been through a lot of turmoil in his career, but is certainly
not the worse of the bunch. While mayor he was successful in a battle
against selling the municipal electric utility which many considered a
public service. (Excepting the power companies who put up big bucks to
oust him.) At least he appears to stand for his convictions,
regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Apparently others
agree, hasn't he served six or seven terms in the house?

I don't live there, obviously, so my information could be flawed, but
at least he isn't as bad as Ney was before going to prison over
coingate, Abramoff, etc.


Greg G.

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.

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.

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

I'd rather not hear their lamentations, but if they can cook...


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:
-MIKE- said:
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that Tim used a Roosevelt quote.
Will wonders never cease? Maybe it's not too late to convert him into
one of those "greedy self-serving liberals who pander to crack whores
on welfare." ;-) He could well become a Kucinich acolyte.

If the idea is a good one, it shouldn't really matter who thought of it.
I've never gotten the impression that Tim would reject an idea simply
because it originated from a liberal.

--
If it ain't perfect, improve it...
But don't break it while you're fixin' it!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Greg G." wrote:

I didn't know you were from Cleveland.

Left 20 years ago.

I have a nurse fried who lives there.

I had a few of those.

As a group, great women.

He has been through a lot of turmoil in his career, but is certainly
not the worse of the bunch. While mayor he was successful in a
battle
against selling the municipal electric utility which many considered
a
public service. (Excepting the power companies who put up big bucks
to
oust him.) At least he appears to stand for his convictions,
regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

George Gund, chairman of Cleveland Trust Bank, sealed his fate by
forcing the city into bankrupty.

Apparently others
agree, hasn't he served six or seven terms in the house?

I forget who he replaced, it was a guy who had also served several
terms but got tired of the rat race.

Haven't heard an explanation of why he voted against the health care
bill, but it probably a protest vote.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Greg G." wrote:

I didn't know you were from Cleveland.

Left 20 years ago.

I have a nurse fried who lives there.

You've obviously never really enjoyed a nurse, then. When they're
STEWED, they are much better.

--
Nonny

You cannot make a stupid kid smart by
handing him a diploma. Schools need standards
to measure the amount of education actually
absorbed by children. Don’t sacrifice the smart
kids to make the dumb ones feel good about themselves.

"Nonny" wrote:

You've obviously never really enjoyed a nurse, then. When they're
STEWED, they are much better.

I won't go there except to say most of the nurses I met in my misspent
youth could put a drunken sailor to shame when it came to John Barley
Corn.

Lew

"Larry Jaques" 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.

Lew Hodgett said:

Greg G." wrote:

I didn't know you were from Cleveland.

Left 20 years ago.

Probably worked out for the best considering the corruption prevalent
during that time.


I have a nurse fried who lives there.

I had a few of those.
As a group, great women.

Yepper, and far nicer than lawyers, as a group.


George Gund, chairman of Cleveland Trust Bank, sealed his fate by
forcing the city into bankrupty.

I thought Gund, the founder, was dead at that point and was a
philanthropist. Went to look it up and found an interesting but wordy
article you might not have read. Mob hits, informants, political
wrangling - they could make a movie out of this stuff.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/...ennis-kucinich

I'm beginning to like this guy more and more...


Haven't heard an explanation of why he voted against the health care
bill, but it probably a protest vote.

Well, here is why - apparently the same reasons I object to this turd:

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927

And his wife - not partial to redheads but...


Greg G.

Steve Turner said:

Greg G. wrote:
I'm still trying to get over the fact that Tim used a Roosevelt quote.
Will wonders never cease? Maybe it's not too late to convert him into
one of those "greedy self-serving liberals who pander to crack whores
on welfare." ;-) He could well become a Kucinich acolyte.

If the idea is a good one, it shouldn't really matter who thought of it.

You would think. That is one thing that drives me up the wall about
the media, partisan groups, PACs, parties, ad nauseam.

I've never gotten the impression that Tim would reject an idea simply
because it originated from a liberal.

I agree, except for the occasional partisan posturing.
I swear, the words left, right, liberal, conservative, et al. should
be banned from public discourse. ;-) Now I feel like such a gossip.


Greg G.

Nonny said:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
.. .
Greg G." wrote:

I didn't know you were from Cleveland.

Left 20 years ago.

I have a nurse fried who lives there.

You've obviously never really enjoyed a nurse, then. When they're
STEWED, they are much better.

D'oh! Come to think of it, you're right!

Who the hell has time to proofreed this crap anyway?


Greg G.

Lew Hodgett said:

"Nonny" wrote:

You've obviously never really enjoyed a nurse, then. When they're
STEWED, they are much better.

I won't go there except to say most of the nurses I met in my misspent
youth could put a drunken sailor to shame when it came to John Barley
Corn.

Well, I won't go that far, but they could put away the guys I know.


Greg G.

Tim Daneliuk said:

Steve Turner wrote:
Greg G. wrote:
I'm still trying to get over the fact that Tim used a Roosevelt quote.

If the idea is a good one, it shouldn't really matter who thought of it.
I've never gotten the impression that Tim would reject an idea simply
because it originated from a liberal.

A likely lesbian liberal, as it turns out.

More like a dead one.
Since I'm not FDR it's not really my business. ;-)

Greg G.