...you should see what miracles occur when you're not oppressed by an onerous "single-payer" socialist-welfare-state "health" care system like the NHS.
Infant mortality rate in the US: 6.3 per 1,000 live births Infant mortality rate in the UK: 4.9 per 1,000 live births
Personally, I'd rather not see the "miracle" of more dead babies.
Ask anyone in the public health field -- in some sense, there's no such things as individual health. Communicable diseases are the easiest way to show that, but it's arguably true for health care in general.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily socialize health care in general. I'd be more likely to just socialize health insurance. As other folks have pointed out, health insurance is in the business of not paying for their customers' medical expenses. Sure, at some level, someone's got to decide whether a test/procedure/medication/whatever is medically necessary. But do we really want that decision made by someone with a vested interest in saying no?
It's not so much global warming that I object to. (As a New Englander, I wouldn't much mind shorter winters.)
It's those pesky little potential side effects that worry me a bit, like flooded coastal cities, specie diebacks, crop failures... that sort of thing. Annoying.
I mean, I could stay warm during the winter by burning my house piece-by-piece, but that seems a touch short-sighted.
(You were joking, I know. This is my jokey response.)
YEAH, how come Jesus didn't post the sermon on the mount for all of us to modify and improve upon instead of dictating it like Microsoft would do?
It's pretty obvious that the original source code has been lost, and the current source is a combination of ignorant reverse engineering, clumsy hacks, and viruses.
To enrich himself? Do you have any evidence at all that GWBush has made money from Iraq? I don't know, a dollar figure, perhaps? Maybe a deposit slip or something?
Right, because the profits of war-profiteers are easy to trace, especially because they always leave a simple paper trail and put the proceeds into their checking accounts.
I mean, it's not like they make huge real estate purchases in Paraguay or anything like that.
because they were illegally filtering out applications people
The law, which the practice was violating (not according to any court, BTW, but only to the new Justice Department), is, probably, unconstitutional in itself, because it tramples on the President's power to run the Administration however he sees fit. He may be limited by the non-discrimination laws, that apply to all employers, but political views aren't among the criteria that one can't discriminate on.
By law, they are. You can believe that the law is unconstitutional -- and you may even be right -- but until it is legally declared unconstitutional, it is still in force.
Because, after all, the only reason to disagree with any of the things he and his cohorts have done is irrational hatred. It has nothing to do with subverting the Constitution he swore to protect, failing to prevent a major terrorist attack despite warnings, unapologetic law-breaking, stove-piping intelligence to justify a war of aggression and an occupation that's trashing our armed forces and our economy, gutting the balance of powers, alienating long-time allies, making the tax burden even more regressive, hamstringing prosecution of marketplace abuses, blatantly politicizing the Justice Department, rewriting science in the name of ideology, or any other similarly whiny little complaint.
Nope, those things are all just shallow excuses. It's all about the hate.
In fact, if "the government" -- or to put it more accurately, one or more government employees -- asks you to break the law, it's arguably your civic duty to report that government employee.
Granted, that would need to be handled delicately, to say the least. But if someone were to come to me and say, "I need your help to rob a bank", I'd probably give the local police a heads-up. Why should it matter if they flashed a badge while making that request? (Except in that case I might give the FBI the heads-up instead.)
I have no intention of "stoning him to death", wherever the hell that came from.
But I'm not talking about him "changing sides in a heartbeat", I'm talking about supposedly "the closest thing to a sane, competent voice" not saying anything as thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die in a war and occupation that he helped make the case for.
Whether or not he knew or suspected that he was passing on a load of bullshit is, by this time, irrelevant. His voice helped start this tragic stupidity and his silence helped keep it going.
Yup, what the US really needs is a VP who has shown that he's willing to help out his boss by publicly giving excruciatingly bad "intelligence" to the United Nations.
Slashdot Mirror
...you should see what miracles occur when you're not oppressed by an onerous "single-payer" socialist-welfare-state "health" care system like the NHS.
Infant mortality rate in the US: 6.3 per 1,000 live births
Infant mortality rate in the UK: 4.9 per 1,000 live births
Personally, I'd rather not see the "miracle" of more dead babies.
The US healthcare system, while not perfect, isn't the real problem. The real problem is the US health insurance system.
(C) Keep your money, and spend it on health care when and where you choose.
Substitute "defense" for "health care" and it makes about as much sense. (Actually, maybe that approach would make a little more sense for defense.)
Ask anyone in the public health field -- in some sense, there's no such things as individual health. Communicable diseases are the easiest way to show that, but it's arguably true for health care in general.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily socialize health care in general. I'd be more likely to just socialize health insurance. As other folks have pointed out, health insurance is in the business of not paying for their customers' medical expenses. Sure, at some level, someone's got to decide whether a test/procedure/medication/whatever is medically necessary. But do we really want that decision made by someone with a vested interest in saying no?
I notice Norquist et al stopped using that phrase after New Orleans drowned and Michael Brown did his "heck of a job" as misdirector of FEMA.
I mean, sure, it makes posting to Slashdot kinda tricky, but [dogt-82-4yh2ht08y]0h]ef[p {A;
Actually, if you could get children to forgo sex in many of these third world countries, a large number of their biggest issues would be solved.
Possibly. For some easy research into whether forgoing sex solves big issues, perhaps someone could run a quick study on Slashdotters.
Or dividing your time between Number One Observatory Circle and Mount Weather in Virginia ...
Cole sees him.
It's those pesky little potential side effects that worry me a bit, like flooded coastal cities, specie diebacks, crop failures ... that sort of thing. Annoying.
I mean, I could stay warm during the winter by burning my house piece-by-piece, but that seems a touch short-sighted.
(You were joking, I know. This is my jokey response.)
YEAH, how come Jesus didn't post the sermon on the mount for all of us to modify and improve upon instead of dictating it like Microsoft would do?
It's pretty obvious that the original source code has been lost, and the current source is a combination of ignorant reverse engineering, clumsy hacks, and viruses.
To enrich himself? Do you have any evidence at all that GWBush has made money from Iraq? I don't know, a dollar figure, perhaps? Maybe a deposit slip or something?
Right, because the profits of war-profiteers are easy to trace, especially because they always leave a simple paper trail and put the proceeds into their checking accounts. I mean, it's not like they make huge real estate purchases in Paraguay or anything like that.
The law, which the practice was violating (not according to any court, BTW, but only to the new Justice Department), is, probably, unconstitutional in itself, because it tramples on the President's power to run the Administration however he sees fit. He may be limited by the non-discrimination laws, that apply to all employers, but political views aren't among the criteria that one can't discriminate on.
By law, they are. You can believe that the law is unconstitutional -- and you may even be right -- but until it is legally declared unconstitutional, it is still in force.
Get over it. He'll be gone in six months.
Because, after all, the only reason to disagree with any of the things he and his cohorts have done is irrational hatred. It has nothing to do with subverting the Constitution he swore to protect, failing to prevent a major terrorist attack despite warnings, unapologetic law-breaking, stove-piping intelligence to justify a war of aggression and an occupation that's trashing our armed forces and our economy, gutting the balance of powers, alienating long-time allies, making the tax burden even more regressive, hamstringing prosecution of marketplace abuses, blatantly politicizing the Justice Department, rewriting science in the name of ideology, or any other similarly whiny little complaint.
Nope, those things are all just shallow excuses. It's all about the hate.
I was positive that your comment was headed towards a John McCain joke...
Hey!! Get off his damn lawn!
I've got a 1:100 chance of being killed in my car, should I stop driving now too?
Given that risk for most people is about 1:5000, maybe you should stop driving.
... but canada also has a much MUCH lower incidence of gun-related crime.
do we blame the lack of social services in the states for the gun crime? Or perhaps the availability of the guns?
Neither. It's Clinton's fault.
NO CARRIER
Granted, that would need to be handled delicately, to say the least. But if someone were to come to me and say, "I need your help to rob a bank", I'd probably give the local police a heads-up. Why should it matter if they flashed a badge while making that request? (Except in that case I might give the FBI the heads-up instead.)
Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
Ah, I see you've managed to jam the signal that's been transmitting for the last 8 years. Welcome back!
True, although it's worth noting that the enforcement of the US Constitution is ultimately the responsibility of US citizens.
But I'm not talking about him "changing sides in a heartbeat", I'm talking about supposedly "the closest thing to a sane, competent voice" not saying anything as thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die in a war and occupation that he helped make the case for.
Whether or not he knew or suspected that he was passing on a load of bullshit is, by this time, irrelevant. His voice helped start this tragic stupidity and his silence helped keep it going.
Just because Lucy has always jerked the football away doesn't mean Charlie Brown won't get to kick it this time.
Yup, what the US really needs is a VP who has shown that he's willing to help out his boss by publicly giving excruciatingly bad "intelligence" to the United Nations.