Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On Jan 23, 9:33*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-01-23 10:13:15 -0500, "Tom Littleton" said:



"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2010012308022216807-dplacourse@aolcom...
You are misinformed again, Littleton. *If my mother was here, she's wash
your mouth out with soap. **Never* have I been on public assistance. *Both
my parents worked hard all of their life and for you to say that is very
hurtful. *I myself have worked hard for everything I have.

I thought I understood you to have said in past posts that there was a brief
period where assistance was required.

Not my immediate family, Tom. *I have never been on assistance of any
kind, nor has my family. *We were a family of hard workers.

If I am wrong, let me be quick to
apologize for the error. It was unintentional, and not meant to demean
anyone.

Your apology is accepted.

In fact, just the opposite. I support social safety nets of various
sorts for the simple reason that they save for productive lives, many who
wouldn't otherwise make it.

I support the same safety nets, Tom. *But that is not the subject of
this thread.



Still my point remains: income redistribution happens, and has happened, in
countless ways. As long as we have any taxes, paying for any programs,
income is being redistributed. Farm subsidies and other
agricultural/forestry programs flow to my family, businesses receive
largesse all the time. It's not so simple
as taking from them that has it, and giving to the undeserving, as you
state.

Tom, I am aware of all that, but *this* redistribution that Obama and
his wife talk about is not what has been and is currently going on. *Of
course our taxes are used to help those less fortunate, and you KNOW
that I support that because of my work with the poor. *But Obama is
talking about socialism when he says redistribute the wealth. *If he is
not talking about socialism, then why even mention redistribution of
wealth.

Further, the poor, for the most part, receive far less in government
handouts, than the wealthy.

Well, I am wealthy and I can not agree with that. *Wolfgag would say
that my retirement pay is a government handout, but it is something I
earned by fulfilling my part of a bargain; stay in the military for 20
years and we will give you free health care and 1/2 of your base pay. *
My social security is again something that I earned. *Will I draw out
of SS more than I put in? *Probably, but I didn't set up the system, I
only paid into it. *If you think that is a hand-out, well, so be it.

Capitalism with safety nets is now what we have. *Leave it alone. *
Obama himself said it is the best in the world. *Why drastically change
it, especially behind closed doors. *Has it ever dawned on any of you
progressives WHY Obama has to rush this thru? *Why it had to be done
before anything else? *Why it took precedence above the terrorist
problem and unemployment?

"He who is governed least is governed best." *Our ever growing big
government and its requisite debt is not the answer.

Dave

Idiot.

Pig.

g.

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On Jan 23, 5:57*pm, sgr wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:55:33 -0500, David LaCourse





wrote:
On 2010-01-23 11:26:15 -0500, sgr said:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:33:05 -0500, David LaCourse
wrote:

Has it ever dawned on any of you
progressives WHY Obama has to rush this thru?

Perhaps to reduce U.S. infant mortality rates, or raise our life
expectancy numbers to be more inline with the rest of the
industrialized world?

Oh, gawd, not another "infant-mortality-rate-fool". *Has it ever dawned
on you that numbers lie sometimes.
WE, the U.S., have an excellent
heath care when it comes to services rendered. *Look up prostate cancer
mortality in the U.S. and compare it to Canada or UK. *Look up other
mortality rates like breast or lung and you will find ours is far
better.

I'm confused. Do the numbers only lie when they make my point, yet are
valid when they make your point?
(BTW, YOU should look up the numbers you just suggested. They lie
again apparently.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari..._American_heal...

The infant crap that socialists constant put forth is NOT

because of our poor health care facilities, but because we try to safe
babies that would otherwise be dead before birth. *I asked a doctor
friend about this and he rolled his eyes. *There are too many things to
cover here, but suffice it to say, numbers lie.

Lemme get this straight. Our infant mortality rate is higher than
other wealthy nations because we try to save them and fail? Really?
And the other wealthy nations just let 'em die? Shocking!
Citation, please.



Or maybe to reduce our expenditures on health care (as a percentage of
GDI) to a level closer to that of the "1st World"?

Yeah. *Sounds great to me, and then we will get the same health care as
Canada and the UK. *If we had done that 15 years ago when I had
prostate cancer (Gleason score of *9*), I would not be writing these
words.

Citation, please.

* (Safe you the trouble, Wolfgang - "Die LaCourse you pig." *

Wolfgang is the only person I know that actually wishes for someone
else's death. *Nice guy, he.)

Or maybe he's just a Socialist punk.

TA DA! *Doctor, doctor, we have a winner in the orchestra! *(You do
remember "Dr. IQ" don't you, or is that a little bit before your time?)

Others, not you, are paying for both your SS and your pension
benefits. You might try to be a bit more open minded towards those of
us paying for ourselves, and you.

Wrong, pizza face.

Let's agree to skip the name calling.
Oh, and **** you.

My wife and I pay more taxes than you could ever
imagine.

Citation, please.

*I pay taxes on my pension and my SS, in addition to taxes on
other income.

What is your point here, I mean other than pointing out you pay taxes
on money received from Socialist systems?

Paging Dr. IQ.- Hide quoted text -


Yet another chapter in the never ending saga for the cretins versus
the imbeciles.

Gotta love it! :)

g.

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On Jan 23, 7:26*pm, sgr wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:33:56 -0500, David LaCourse

wrote:
On 2010-01-23 18:57:21 -0500, sgr said:

What is your point here, I mean other than pointing out you pay taxes
on money received from Socialist systems?

Do you have an income of more than $200,000.oo a year?

Combined, yes.

No? *I pay more
taxes than you.

I believe that.

My Navy retirement is NOT a socialist system.

Your Navy is, so its expenditures must be.

It was
part of a contract. *I tried, oh how I tried, not to pay social
security. *But, nope, ya gotta pay. *Well, now I am reaping its
benefits. *Ya pays ya get the benefit.

I do not want Canada or UK health care, TYVM. *Why do you think
Canadians come here for procedures?

My Canadian relatives don't. Why do you think that is?
(hint):http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in
Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems,
including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses
and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive
statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured
Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed
results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured
Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or
mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada
(relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but
were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations
for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results
consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in
which Canadian patients fared better.



Baby mortality? *No, the other countries don't just let them die. *That
woud be cruel. *They just don't try to save them.

So they don't count as deaths?

http://www.prb.org/Educators/Teacher...on/Health.aspx



Like I said, if I had my cancer in Canada 15 years ago, chances are I'd
be dead.

Citation, please.



What's your name, btw? *We don't have any secrets here on roff. *We all
know each other.
Where we live.
Number of wives/kids.

One wife, one kid.

Don't much care for anonymous folks.

You don't apparently give that much of a **** about each other,
either, if your posts are any indication.

Seems they have much to hide.

I have nothing to hide. I just don't know if this is the kind of place
in which I want to share that much info. So far, it ain't what I
expected.

Where are you
from?

I'm both from, and in, California.

How long have you been fly fishing.

About 29 years

DO you in fact fly fish?

Do you ever post about fly fishing?

There's Frank and his father Frank Sr., Wolfgang, Ken, Mark aka Opie,
John Baker, John Russell, me, Tom Littleton, Dave Snedeker, wayno boy
lawyer, et al. *We all have met and fished together. *Quite a club this
place.

Quite a club, indeed.
"You wouldn't take my word for it, Tom? ***** you!"
"Wrong, pizza face."
You wouldn't happen to be the club's membership recruiter, would you?

Nah, he's just the model we hold up to the world.

g.

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On Jan 23, 6:41*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message

...Obvio usly, no government cannot be the best government. *On the other

hand, no government might very well be better than the best

government.

at first, I read the above as you exercising semantics,

Well, if you mean that I may sometimes endeavor to inject something
like meaning into what I write (and thus, into whatever "discussion" I
contribute that writing to), yeah, I guess I have to plead guilty.

but coupled with
some of your other comments, I wonder if you, Wolfie, are suggesting a
society without government.

an interesting thought.

If so, I'd appreciate examples of how that works on a society which is
urbanized, diverse and fairly densely populated.

Can't think of any societies whatsoever that work without government.
The existence of some sort of government is an integral part of any
society. In fact, one could make a very good argument for the
proposition that the existence of some sort of government is the ONLY
requisite for the existence of a society.

Actually, I would take
issue with a few of your remarks aimed toward Larry's observations,

I'd be surprised if you didn't.

which I didn't find to be poorly thought out whatsoever.

Your findings are your own responsibility.....not mine.

In addition, you state that
there have been no real-world tests of various permutations of
capitalism/socialism/communism, if I understand you correctly.

You don't. What I said is that "neither capitalist nor communist
ideology has yet suffered a
real world test worthy of consideration." The distinction isn't at
all subtle or obscure.....and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out
why it matters.

Why would you
feel that history provides no such evidence of tests?

It isn't that history provides no such evidence of tests, it's that
history provides no evidence of such tests. See above.

giles.

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

David LaCourse wrote:


Today as 15 years ago, survival of prostate cancer in Canada is and was
a dismal failure. And don't ask me for a "citation". Look it up, Mr.
A. This has been an argument on roff ever since Obama became
president. All sorts of numbers flying throught the air. Short of
shorts: If you want good care with the best docs, equipment, and drugs,
9 out of 10 says do it here.

The following article says that five-year survival from prostate cancer
in the US and Canada are pretty similar, 91.1 and 85.1%. I don't think
anyone would say that a 6% difference is a dismal failure.

http://healthcare.procon.org/sourcef...vivalStudy.pdf

The following study says that the peak mortality rate for prostate
cancer in the US occurred in 1991 and was 29.4 deaths per 100,000 men.
The same study says that the peak mortlaity rate for porstate cancer in
Canada occurred in 1991, and was 31.2 deaths per 100,000 men. Again,
hardly a huge difference. It indicates that rates were simialr between
Canada and the US 15 years ago.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...f/15192905.pdf

No wonder you don't want people to ask you for a citation.

Tim Lysyk

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

ACTIONS speak LOUDER than words/speeches!

Quit Talking Obama!

Quit Spending Obama!

Quit Taxing Obama!

Quit Legislating Obama!

Quit Destroying Business Obama!

Quit Apologizing For The United States Of America Obama!

Quit Giving Our Rights To Terrorists That HATE America Obama!

Quit Bowing To Foreign Dictators Obama!

JUST QUIT OBAMA!

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:z6P6n.60726$Db2.7706@edtnps83...
David LaCourse wrote:


Today as 15 years ago, survival of prostate cancer in Canada is and was a
dismal failure. And don't ask me for a "citation". Look it up, Mr. A.
This has been an argument on roff ever since Obama became president. All
sorts of numbers flying throught the air. Short of shorts: If you want
good care with the best docs, equipment, and drugs, 9 out of 10 says do
it here.

The following article says that five-year survival from prostate cancer in
the US and Canada are pretty similar, 91.1 and 85.1%. I don't think anyone
would say that a 6% difference is a dismal failure.

http://healthcare.procon.org/sourcef...vivalStudy.pdf

The following study says that the peak mortality rate for prostate cancer
in the US occurred in 1991 and was 29.4 deaths per 100,000 men. The same
study says that the peak mortlaity rate for porstate cancer in Canada
occurred in 1991, and was 31.2 deaths per 100,000 men. Again, hardly a
huge difference. It indicates that rates were simialr between Canada and
the US 15 years ago.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...f/15192905.pdf

No wonder you don't want people to ask you for a citation.

Tim Lysyk

Tim, Tim, Tim,

You don't really expect delusional davie to accept anything but his own
devine providence, as proof of Amerika's superior healthcare system, do you?
He has trotted out the same old one trick pony so many time that he has had
to have titanium shoe made for the pony. Each time his lies are refuted he
crawls back under his rock for a time--until he thinks folks memories have
faded and then he brings his proud pony back out again and again and
again...

Facts are beyond delusional Davie's comprehension.

Op

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On Jan 22, 6:57*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Larry L" wrote in message

...

well put, Larry. It's sort of enlightening that our founding fathers built a
system of government, not an economic model. They knew what was truly
important, and also knew they couldn't forsee the economies of the future..

What John doesn't see is that when it comes to healthcare, we are talking
about something that ought to be a birthright of citizenship,

That is as idiotic, divisive, and willfully ignorant as saying (to the
nation at large) that we should all accept Jesus Christ as our Lord
and Savior.

It may be a great idea for some and philosophically hardwired into
them, but it ain't a universally held view, and to assume it is, or
even that it should be, is just plain stupid.

cheers

oz, who prefers primary sources

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On Jan 24, 12:35*am, MajorOz wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:57*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

"Larry L" wrote in message

....

well put, Larry. It's sort of enlightening that our founding fathers built a
system of government, not an economic model. They knew what was truly
important, and also knew they couldn't forsee the economies of the future.

What John doesn't see is that when it comes to healthcare, we are talking
about something that ought to be a birthright of citizenship,

That is as idiotic, divisive, and willfully ignorant as saying (to the
nation at large) that we should all accept Jesus Christ as our Lord
and Savior.

There was a timein this country when the proposition that a publicly
funded education was, or ought to be, a birthright of citizenship was
seen by many to be prohibitively expensive, idiotic, divisive and
willfully ignorant. When I was a child that birthright was about as
close to a universally accepted standard as one is likely to find in a
large and diverse population. Today, that no longer appears to be the
case.....and every day, here in ROFF, we see that those who harbor
doubts about the efficacy of the program (let alone the cost) have a
point worthy of consideration.

It may be a great idea for some and philosophically hardwired into
them, but it ain't a universally held view, and to assume it is, or
even that it should be, is just plain stupid.

You've seen evidence that someone believes it to be a universally held
view? Would you like to share that evidence with us?

cheers

oz, who prefers primary sources

Experience suggests that they wouldn't do you any good.

g.
circumstances and consensus change.....willful ignorance and stupidity
don't.

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

MajorOz wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote:
What John doesn't see is that when it comes to healthcare, we are talking
about something that ought to be a birthright of citizenship,

It may be a great idea for some and philosophically hardwired into
them, but it ain't a universally held view, and to assume it is, or
even that it should be, is just plain stupid.

There it is, distilled into easy-to-read roffian format. The health
care debate in a nutshell. Decent human beings who care for their
fellow Americans feel strongly that health care is a right and the
rugged individualists feel strongly that it's every man for himself.

I don't know from philosophical hardwires but it's pretty easy for
me to see where the moral high ground is in this debate.

--
Ken Fortenberry