Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm done with this discussion.  You know you're right and my position is 
> stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid.  We're getting 
> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
> 

But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any 
discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point 
where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority 
control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.

And as this discussion is had over and over in different places, 
undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the 
expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of 
legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources 
at all, but about their control.

We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both 
stated this explicitly. Until next time.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm done with this discussion.  You know you're right and my position
>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid.  We're getting
>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>> 
>> 
> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
> 
> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
> at all, but about their control.
> 
> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
> stated this explicitly. Until next time.

I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion 
is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of 
the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one 
outweigh the needs of the many.

What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's 
needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are 
paramount.  Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong 
society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals.  You believe 
the former, I believe the latter.  Neither is probably 100% correct, and 
the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> I'm not, because a corporation can't raise my insurance rate to 
>> whatever the Hell they want and then throw me in prison for refusing 
>> to patronize their business. 
> 
> Why would doing this at a state level be any different?

As I'm sure you've seen from this thread, there are people who see 
minority rights principally as obstacles to majority benefit. The 
Supreme Court was put in place to protect the minority from those 
people, but it doesn't seem to be working.

The best option left to those who would protect minority rights is to 
limit the power of the "tyranny of the majority" crowd. This is done by 
limiting and decentralizing the power of the government. I don't like 
that a state would have that much power, but any entity powerful enough 
to so limit a state would itself be too powerful.

It is inevitable, however, that we will move continuously towards 
totalitarianism until the next revolution.


> This, like military, police, and fire, seems like a good thing to have 
> centralized. Or are you also against having the fire department a 
> public/government service?

When I see a candidate stand up at a presidential convention and rally 
the crowd by promising more fire protection paid for by fewer people, 
then I'll worry about the fire department.

> 
> How about safety standards and other such regulation? Are you of the 
> opinion that paying inspectors and regulators to make sure your cars and 
> buildings are safe is inappropriate?

No I am not. That's a separate issue in my mind. We'll have to discuss 
that another time, I'm not ready to open up a new can of worms right now.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> No I am not. That's a separate issue in my mind. We'll have to discuss 
> that another time, I'm not ready to open up a new can of worms right now.

Thanks. I just wanted to get your take on this (and the other questions) 
without disputing who is right or wrong or whatever. I particularly like 
your comment about state power - I hadn't thought of it that way before.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-8-2009 4:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm done with this discussion.  You know you're right and my position
>>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid.  We're getting
>>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
>> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
>> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
>> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
>>
>> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
>> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
>> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
>> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
>> at all, but about their control.
>>
>> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
>> stated this explicitly. Until next time.
> 
> I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion 
> is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of 
> the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one 
> outweigh the needs of the many.
> 
> What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's 
> needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are 
> paramount.  Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong 
> society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals.  You believe 
> the former, I believe the latter.  Neither is probably 100% correct, and 
> the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)
> 
> Jim

For me as an outsider this was also interesting to watch. Mainly because 
both points of view do not correspond to how I think the world (should) 
work. My POV is of course dominated by living in the Netherlands and 
knowing where in this system the weak points are. Here we made a lot of 
different choices in the past and not only do we now have a different 
system, we do have different politicians and even a different ethics 
than in the USA. Discussions like this help me understand both how 
people reason not by fact but mainly by prejudices and at the same time 
that I do too. It also does enhance my feeling that I don't want to live 
in the USA, they are all completely nuts ;)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm done with this discussion.  You know you're right and my position
>>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid.  We're getting
>>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
>> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
>> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
>> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
>>
>> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
>> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
>> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
>> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
>> at all, but about their control.
>>
>> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
>> stated this explicitly. Until next time.
> 
> I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion 
> is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of 
> the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one 
> outweigh the needs of the many.
> 
> What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's 
> needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are 
> paramount.  Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong 
> society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals.  You believe 
> the former, I believe the latter.  Neither is probably 100% correct, and 
> the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)
> 
> Jim

We agree 100%. As a logical concept, the needs of the many outweigh the 
needs of the few. If I had a magic button that could save one life or 
save ten, I would of course save ten.

Great, so there we have it. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of 
the few. So let's start euthanizing the handicapped and harvesting their 
organs.

No? Yeah, there's something I forgot? Isn't there? Sure, those 
handicapped people have rights, so closer to what we're arguing about is 
whether the rights of the people outweigh the rights of the few. You say 
almost always and I say almost never.

But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise 
thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he many 
should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority should 
decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the minority's. 
That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the system you 
propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat the third.

  -Shay

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> 
> 
> And how did we get into that debt?  Partly by skyrocketing health care 
> costs.  The bloody insurance companies aren't going to fix that.  The 
> whole friggin' system is set up to keep us SICK so the shareholders in 
> hospitals and insurance companies can MAKE MORE MONEY.  That's messed up.
> 
> 

This is one place in this debate where I grow a little confused.  I 
understand the idea of containing some waste, redundant tests, redundant 
bureaucracies, possibly, with health insurance centralized under 
government.  But can you really blame the Health Insurance Industry for 
everything?  Afterall, the criticism they usually take is for denying 
benefits so that they pay out less money and make more profit for 
themselves.  The allegation I hear is that this tendency (to cut 
benefits) is then reinforced, even amplified, by Wall Street investors 
who examine payout ratios before making their investments.  I would be 
interested in what you believe is the exact mechanism whereby the Health 
Insurance Industry contributes to skyrocketing health care costs.

Just to be clear, I generally find myself in favor of government 
involvement in health care, in particular in the health insurance side. 
  In particular I think that health insurance needs to be divorced from 
employer compensation.  So this is not a persoanl challenge to you, if 
you can give me an answer that makes sense, I will use it mayself in 
conversation.  But currently I cannot see how the insurance industry 
takes the blame coming and going.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:55:05 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

> I would be interested in
> what you believe is the exact mechanism whereby the Health Insurance
> Industry contributes to skyrocketing health care costs.

IMO a big part of it is denial of preventative care because the doctor is/
was "out of network" or some other bizzare reason.  So rather than 
prevent us from getting sick, they'd rather things get bad enough that we 
have to go for a major visit.

On a smaller scale, I went to get my teeth and gums cleaned.  The dentist 
said that my gums were bad enough that he wanted me to see a periodontist 
for my cleanings for the next year.

But my insurance company doesn't cover *preventative* periodontal care; 
it's only covered if I've had periodontal surgery, which means I hadn't 
let things get *bad enough*.  So the incentive is to let things get worse 
so I need surgery, then I can get my teeth cleaned.

And of course my dentist didn't know this about my plan (how could he 
keep track of everyone's plan's limitations?), and my read of the plan 
was that it as covered.

Now, it was important enough to me that I paid the whole cost of these 
visits out of pocket, but I can afford to.  Those who couldn't afford to 
would've had to let things get worse in order for them to get better.

And when they get worse, that drives the costs up.  I'm know the 
insurance company saved about $500 by not paying out on my claim, but if 
I'd let it get to the point where I needed surgery, it sure as hell 
would've cost them more than $500.

This is what pisses me off when people who aren't in favour of universal 
health care say "we don't want a bureaucrat dictating what we can and 
cannot have" - because we already *have* that.

(Yeah, slightly offtopic there, but I think I answered your question 
above)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise 
> thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he many 
> should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority should 
> decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the minority's. 
> That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the system you 
> propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat the third.

Why can't we just say that, in some instances, the rights of the many 
outweigh the rights of the few, and in others the rights of the 
individual are paramount?

I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done in 
this specific instance.

I know moral ambiguity isn't very popular in the media (it doesn't sell 
T-Shirts, for one thing) but it's rather practical and, more often than 
not, a situational ethic seems to provide the best solution.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:47:41 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Why can't we just say that, in some instances, the rights of the many
> outweigh the rights of the few, and in others the rights of the
> individual are paramount?

Well said. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> 
> IMO a big part of it is denial of preventative care because the doctor is/
> was "out of network" or some other bizzare reason.  So rather than 
> prevent us from getting sick, they'd rather things get bad enough that we 
> have to go for a major visit.
> 
> On a smaller scale, I went to get my teeth and gums cleaned.  The dentist 
> said that my gums were bad enough that he wanted me to see a periodontist 
> for my cleanings for the next year.
> 
> But my insurance company doesn't cover *preventative* periodontal care; 
> it's only covered if I've had periodontal surgery, which means I hadn't 
> let things get *bad enough*.  So the incentive is to let things get worse 
> so I need surgery, then I can get my teeth cleaned.
> 
> And of course my dentist didn't know this about my plan (how could he 
> keep track of everyone's plan's limitations?), and my read of the plan 
> was that it as covered.
> 

> And when they get worse, that drives the costs up.  I'm know the 
> insurance company saved about $500 by not paying out on my claim, but if 
> I'd let it get to the point where I needed surgery, it sure as hell 
> would've cost them more than $500.
> 
> This is what pisses me off when people who aren't in favour of universal 
> health care say "we don't want a bureaucrat dictating what we can and 
> cannot have" - because we already *have* that.
> 

Yes, well understanding exactly what we have, ie. how such decisions are 
being made, and how it malfunctions is a big part of the problem.  The 
question does become, can something government-run really do better.

I can speculate about the anedotal examples you offer, (and I can match 
them, and so can others I know), and try to extrapolate from there and 
form ideas how free enterprise falls short.

I would suppose it is more cost effective for insurance companies to try 
and expunge demographic groups from the insurance roles. I would suppose 
it is easier for them to quantify the costs from groups based on 
demographics or certain ailments, than for them to try and quantify the 
cost effectiveness of various preventative or alternative treatments, in 
detail, across a broad range of ailments.  Otherwise, if the anecdotes 
you, I, and everyone else can offer are true, there should be an 
incentive for an insurance company to make good decisions around these 
issues.  But only if the cost of determining such good decisions costs 
less than what is saved.  Also it would seem true that a company could 
enter the market with some success by covering such treatments.

So one wonders now much it would cost to identify such cost saving 
improvements. And if a government run program could really contaon cost 
any better.

Also if many cost saving improvements would even gain traction with the 
public. Especially without the support of doctors.  To be honest many of 
my personal stories of excessive costs seem to point directly at the 
physician.*  I can see how insurance companies are incentivised to 
contain costs.  I don't see why doctors necessarily are.


*A urologist who tried to rush me into expensive surgery as a fertility 
treatment. When the mundane, and cost free solutiion, cooler baths, was 
arrived at by my chiropractor, he actually tried to schedule surgery 
before the effectiveness of the mundane solution could be confirmed with 
test results.
*An alternative treatment, not covered by insurance, for a back ailment 
that allowed my boss's mother to walk out of the office unassisted, 
having entered using crutches
*Recently a doctor prescribing Nexium to my 21 year old son for acid 
reflux.  Nexium is the most heavy-duty of the available breed of 
medicines for that ailment, and, the most expensive of that breed by at 
least a factor of two.  The treatment plan was: 'use as needed.' Huh?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> But can you really blame the Health Insurance Industry for 
> everything?

Absolutely not.  If so, then regulation would be an answer.  However, 
part of the problem is systemic, which is why reform is needed.

One of the problems is billing, for instance.  Insurance companies are 
experts at negotiating discount rates for their large volume in order to 
drive their costs down.   The government funds (Medicare and Medicaid) 
look at bills and say, "We'll pay X% of these." Care providers are 
experts at padding bills in order to drive their costs up.

The end result is that, between private insurance & government funds, 
the healthcare industry gets the funds they need to operate, but it's 
only a percentage of their claimed prices.  This doesn't hurt the 
healthcare industry (they still get the money they need), the government 
(they pay what they can and then say "enough") or the insurance 
companies (they negotiate their discounts, remember?).

It hurts people without insurance, because they're left paying the 
inflated sticker price which they can't afford.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:01:35 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

>  To be honest many of
> my personal stories of excessive costs seem to point directly at the
> physician.*

Oh, sure - part of that comes from the physician's sponsorship by the 
drug companies.  I lucked out and found a very *good* allergist who 
doesn't believe in just alleviating the symptoms (though I do take a 
couple of drugs to alleviate symptoms from my allergies) but also getting 
at addressing the root cause.

The thing that impressed me about him was that he took me off Advair (for 
asthma) when it became apparent that it wasn't necessary or having a 
significant effect - he's given me an albuterol inhaler for emergencies, 
which I've used maybe 3 times (and had to have replaced because it 
expired).  He's very much into not prescribing things that aren't 
necessary - as opposed to my PCP, who handed me a bunch of samples and 
said "try these".  Needless to say, I've switched PCPs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>
>> IMO a big part of it is denial of preventative care because the doctor
>> is/
>> was "out of network" or some other bizzare reason.  So rather than
>> prevent us from getting sick, they'd rather things get bad enough that
>> we have to go for a major visit.
>>
>> On a smaller scale, I went to get my teeth and gums cleaned.  The
>> dentist said that my gums were bad enough that he wanted me to see a
>> periodontist for my cleanings for the next year.
>>
>> But my insurance company doesn't cover *preventative* periodontal
>> care; it's only covered if I've had periodontal surgery, which means I
>> hadn't let things get *bad enough*.  So the incentive is to let things
>> get worse so I need surgery, then I can get my teeth cleaned.
>>
>> And of course my dentist didn't know this about my plan (how could he
>> keep track of everyone's plan's limitations?), and my read of the plan
>> was that it as covered.
>>
> 
>> And when they get worse, that drives the costs up.  I'm know the
>> insurance company saved about $500 by not paying out on my claim, but
>> if I'd let it get to the point where I needed surgery, it sure as hell
>> would've cost them more than $500.
>>
>> This is what pisses me off when people who aren't in favour of
>> universal health care say "we don't want a bureaucrat dictating what
>> we can and cannot have" - because we already *have* that.
>>
> 
> Yes, well understanding exactly what we have, ie. how such decisions are
> being made, and how it malfunctions is a big part of the problem.  The
> question does become, can something government-run really do better.
> 
> I can speculate about the anedotal examples you offer, (and I can match
> them, and so can others I know), and try to extrapolate from there and
> form ideas how free enterprise falls short.
> 

I don't have to speculate about government healthcare, I am on it. Long
time disability, and a long boring story. The difference between the two
are night and day, really.

When I was on my parents private insurance, I saw the tables of
paperwork they had to do to make sure that things got covered. Now, I
will admit that desks were a lot taller back then, so my memory is
probably skewed a bit.

Now the same test, that was done several times when I was younger and
resulted in paperwork to approve and cover, was performed with no
paperwork passing through my hands. None. I did not have to justify
anything, the doctor did that. My GP had sent me to a specialist over a
disorder that they could not handle, and the specialist thought the test
would be informative, and as far as I know no abnormal paperwork was
done by them either.

It was informative, and by ordering injections of radioactive isotopes
they determined that there was nothing that really needed to be done. As
the specialist said, he could have tossed around CAT and MRI scans, and
lots of blood work and sonograms, and who knows what else. Sure, an
expensive test looks like more work up front, but that alone saved them
from running the other tests every 6 months for the next 3 years.

To add to the cost savings, no one had to be hired to peruse the
paperwork and stamp it with a big red 'denied'.

> I would suppose it is more cost effective for insurance companies to try
> and expunge demographic groups from the insurance roles. I would suppose
> it is easier for them to quantify the costs from groups based on
> demographics or certain ailments, than for them to try and quantify the
> cost effectiveness of various preventative or alternative treatments, in
> detail, across a broad range of ailments.  Otherwise, if the anecdotes
> you, I, and everyone else can offer are true, there should be an
> incentive for an insurance company to make good decisions around these
> issues.  But only if the cost of determining such good decisions costs
> less than what is saved.  Also it would seem true that a company could
> enter the market with some success by covering such treatments.
> 

That assumes new companies can even enter the legal minefield that the
major insurance companies have made to protect themselves.

> So one wonders now much it would cost to identify such cost saving
> improvements. And if a government run program could really contaon cost
> any better.
> 

The government already does a pretty good job at containing the costs.
Medicaid/Medicare have prices that they will pay hospitals on most major
procedures. These are not usually negotiable, if I understood what the
hospital staff was explaining. But then again, neither are the prices
that major insurers will pay. They set them and if the hospital wants to
have anyone visit it in that state they had better take those prices.

> Also if many cost saving improvements would even gain traction with the
> public. Especially without the support of doctors.  To be honest many of
> my personal stories of excessive costs seem to point directly at the
> physician.*  I can see how insurance companies are incentivised to
> contain costs.  I don't see why doctors necessarily are.
> 

The doctors really aren't. They don't need to be, but they are often in
the best position to know what the best treatment would be. Often, not
always. I would still trust most of their opinions over someone sitting
in an office building completely detached from the patient.

> 
> *A urologist who tried to rush me into expensive surgery as a fertility
> treatment. When the mundane, and cost free solutiion, cooler baths, was
> arrived at by my chiropractor, he actually tried to schedule surgery
> before the effectiveness of the mundane solution could be confirmed with
> test results.

Surgeons, I don't trust any of 'em. When dealing with any specialist,
tell them up front that any invasive procedure will be performed by
someone at another clinic after a second opinion. What how quick they
will offer simpler solutions.

> *An alternative treatment, not covered by insurance, for a back ailment
> that allowed my boss's mother to walk out of the office unassisted,
> having entered using crutches
> *Recently a doctor prescribing Nexium to my 21 year old son for acid
> reflux.  Nexium is the most heavy-duty of the available breed of
> medicines for that ailment, and, the most expensive of that breed by at
> least a factor of two.  The treatment plan was: 'use as needed.' Huh?

Could be that the doctor knows that, while an over the counter medicine
for the same costs some $20 a month, a prescription may only cost the
patient their copay amount. Or, the doctor is on the christmas card list
of the drug company behind that pill.

That is a whole other area of needed reforms, though.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>> But can you really blame the Health Insurance Industry for everything?
> 
> Absolutely not.  If so, then regulation would be an answer.  However,
> part of the problem is systemic, which is why reform is needed.
> 
> One of the problems is billing, for instance.  Insurance companies are
> experts at negotiating discount rates for their large volume in order to
> drive their costs down.

The other dirty trick is by not paying any doctor who charges less than
their rate to anyone not covered. In certain areas where there is only
one insurance company, either because there is only one major employer
or from state regulation, this can lock people out of receiving care.
And most doctors could not get by by only seeing patients without that
insurance.

>   The government funds (Medicare and Medicaid)
> look at bills and say, "We'll pay X% of these." Care providers are
> experts at padding bills in order to drive their costs up.
> 

Ask the care providers if they know what it costs. Sure, they know what
the machine cost to a few significant digits. And they often know what
the costs to operate it are, or the costs of the medicines they
prescribe. But the overhead that the hospital gets, to pay for the
stacks of paperwork or for profit, are often completely unknown. If you
find out what it costs, try to even find details on what the big
companies pay.

Finding the actual X% that the government pays is not too tough. They
factor in regional costs compared to national, and pay extra for clinics
serving the low-income bracket. The details are at
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/ along with a way to lookup the amount
they pay for certain specific procedures.

> The end result is that, between private insurance & government funds,
> the healthcare industry gets the funds they need to operate, but it's
> only a percentage of their claimed prices.  This doesn't hurt the
> healthcare industry (they still get the money they need), the government
> (they pay what they can and then say "enough") or the insurance
> companies (they negotiate their discounts, remember?).
> 
> It hurts people without insurance, because they're left paying the
> inflated sticker price which they can't afford.
> 
> ...Chambers

I heard or read somewhere, that the best advice for someone without
insurance was to ask the management at a doctors office what they would
charge if you paid in cash, up front. Most doctors don't even know what
the office charges, but management knows what it costs to go through
stacks of paperwork.

Did that for an eye exam last year, after they quoted me the price they
would gladly bill my insurance, paid something like $50 for the whole
work up.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise 
>> thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he 
>> many should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority 
>> should decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the 
>> minority's. That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the 
>> system you propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat 
>> the third.
> 
> Why can't we just say that, in some instances, the rights of the many 
> outweigh the rights of the few, and in others the rights of the 
> individual are paramount?

Because the individual doesn't have any say in the "why can't we just 
say..." The Constitution is his only defense against the many.

> 
> I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done in 
> this specific instance.

If this were allowed, *every* specific instance would lead to majority 
benefit at the cost of minority rights.

"""
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only 
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse 
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes 
for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury 
with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal 
policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the 
world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
  -Alexander Tytler (unverified)
"""

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>> I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done 
>> in this specific instance.
> 
> If this were allowed, *every* specific instance would lead to majority 
> benefit at the cost of minority rights.

You should always avoid absolutes.

;)

> """
> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only 
> exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse 
> from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes 
> for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury 
> with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal 
> policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the 
> world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
>  -Alexander Tytler (unverified)

I guess the US is ripe for destruction then.  Good luck in the new world 
order.

Oh, by the way... what's the age of the United Kingdom?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I heard or read somewhere, that the best advice for someone without
> insurance was to ask the management at a doctors office what they would
> charge if you paid in cash, up front. Most doctors don't even know what
> the office charges, but management knows what it costs to go through
> stacks of paperwork.
> 
> Did that for an eye exam last year, after they quoted me the price they
> would gladly bill my insurance, paid something like $50 for the whole
> work up.

I'm glad that worked for you.  If I find myself without coverage again, 
I'll remember that.

My father in law works for Safeco, so I've heard some real horror 
stories about people's lives being ruined by medical bills that were 
denied coverage.

I know those instances aren't the norm, but they happen far too often to 
be acceptable.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
>> """
>> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can 
>> only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves 
>> largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority 
>> always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the 
>> public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over 
>> loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average 
>> age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
>>  -Alexander Tytler (unverified)
> 
> I guess the US is ripe for destruction then.  Good luck in the new world 
> order.

How long do you think we can continue to borrow from the future?

> 
> Oh, by the way... what's the age of the United Kingdom?

The government or the title?
As a democracy?
As a "great civilization"?

Questions for a historian, I suppose. And subjective even then.

I'm more interested what position you would take on *my* words. What 
protection would you give to the few when the many are "just say(ing)" 
that their own rights rights outweigh those of the few? How would you 
protect those protections against the next occurrence of "just say(ing)"?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> How long do you think we can continue to borrow from the future?

I hate to tell you this, but it's impossible to not borrow exponentially 
more money from the future over time, the way the money system is now set 
up. Everyone owes everyone money, and there's no way to pay it all back. 
It's mathematically impossible to pay back all loans. There's more money 
owed than there is existent, and the only way to make more money is to 
borrow it.

> I'm more interested what position you would take on *my* words. What 
> protection would you give to the few when the many are "just say(ing)" 
> that their own rights rights outweigh those of the few? How would you 
> protect those protections against the next occurrence of "just say(ing)"?

The rights of the few cannot be protected from the majority in practice, 
except by having the few in a different sovereign organization with its own 
military force. You have to look at each attempted infringement and decide 
if it's sufficiently worthwhile to make people pay for it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> The rights of the few cannot be protected from the majority in practice, 
> except by having the few in a different sovereign organization with its 
> own military force. You have to look at each attempted infringement and 
> decide if it's sufficiently worthwhile to make people pay for it.

I don't know how many more ways I can say it. In a democracy, the "you" 
that judges each attempted infringement is the group doing the 
infringing. Do you not see a problem with that?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 1-9-2009 8:45, Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>>> I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done 
>>> in this specific instance.
>>
>> If this were allowed, *every* specific instance would lead to majority 
>> benefit at the cost of minority rights.
> 
> You should always avoid absolutes.
> 
> ;)
> 
>> """
>> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can 
>> only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves 
>> largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority 
>> always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the 
>> public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over 
>> loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average 
>> age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
>>  -Alexander Tytler (unverified)
> 
> I guess the US is ripe for destruction then.  Good luck in the new world 
> order.
> 
> Oh, by the way... what's the age of the United Kingdom?

According to wikipedia: 80 years

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Do you not see a problem with that?

Of course I do. I don't see a *solution* with that, other than common sense.

Surely you don't think protecting the rights of individuals at the expense 
of the majority is *always* a good thing?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Do you not see a problem with that?
> 
> Of course I do.

Then that answers the question of why we can't "have to look at each 
attempted infringement and decide if it's sufficiently worthwhile to 
make people pay for it" or, as Chambers put it, "just say that, in some 
instances, the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few."

> I don't see a *solution* with that, other than common 
> sense.

The best solution is to have a Constitution and an entire branch of 
government whose purpose is to ensure that he power of the majority 
stays within the bounds of that Constitution. ==> Check!

That solution is imperfect, however, because the public will allow 
(encourage) our government to ignore its founding documents. The 
ultimate solution is that those too often in the minority take up arms 
or vote with their feet. ==> Not yet, I hope!

The intermediate solution is to educate the electorate on why (besides 
being a bunch of meanies who don't want us to have stuff) the founding 
fathers chose to limit the power of the majority. ==> Fail!

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> Do you not see a problem with that?
>>
>> Of course I do.
> 
> Then that answers the question of why we can't

I wasn't trying to.

>> I don't see a *solution* with that, other than common sense.
> 
> The best solution is to have a Constitution and an entire branch of 
> government whose purpose is to ensure that he power of the majority 
> stays within the bounds of that Constitution. ==> Check!

Which we have, in theory.

> That solution is imperfect, however, because the public will allow 
> (encourage) our government to ignore its founding documents.

Or, as seen in California, vote for amendments anyway. You really can't get 
around it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> I'm more interested what position you would take on *my* words. What 
> protection would you give to the few when the many are "just say(ing)" 
> that their own rights rights outweigh those of the few? How would you 
> protect those protections against the next occurrence of "just say(ing)"?

Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.

You haven't really formed any arguments concerning the topic at hand 
(Obama's healthcare plan), except to say that you don't want to be taxed 
to pay for it.  Without looking at specific figures, I can't say whether 
or not I agree with that.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> I don't know how many more ways I can say it. In a democracy, the "you" 
> that judges each attempted infringement is the group doing the 
> infringing. Do you not see a problem with that?

That's slightly disingenuous.  The group doing the infringing overlaps 
the group that judges each attempt, but they're not necessarily the same 
(nor are they necessarily distinct).

The group doing the judging, of course, would be the active voters, who 
may or may not be the same as the group that benefits from any specific 
legislation.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:45:53 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>I guess the US is ripe for destruction then.  Good luck in the new world 
>order.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akoukq5DvAE

Or the origional video with Barry McGuire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8SfiCnwF28


>Oh, by the way... what's the age of the United Kingdom?

The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 and in 1801 it became the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1927 it was called United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Irish Free State got full
independence.

The UK is not a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy. But I know what you
mean. Again the answer is complicated by "suffrage". By 1918 all citizens over
21 had the right to vote (Northern Ireland is a special case as some citizens
had two or more votes). The first English parliament was created in 1295 but
that was hardly democratic as the parliamentarians were all Lords of the Realm.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
>> That solution is imperfect, however, because the public will allow 
>> (encourage) our government to ignore its founding documents.
> 
> Or, as seen in California, vote for amendments anyway. You really can't 
> get around it.

I think it's a swinging pendulum. At the moment, the prevailing mindset 
is "tear down our entire system of government if you have to in order to 
pass this (then this, then this, then this, then this) piece of 
legislation" or "government excess, growth, and debt only matter if the 
controlling party have the wrong letter beside their names."

This is why discussion of what the majority might do with some newly 
granted authority is of less importance than discussion of whether the 
authority should be granted at all. No matter how well intentioned a 
piece of legislation, due to the lawlessness you have mentioned, there 
is no control over what the majority, having been granted additional 
dominion over the minority, will do with that dominion. Isn't this the 
argument against the Patriot Act? The Cybersecurity Act?

Given the popularity ratings of both major parties, I think the 
pendulum's arc towards lawlessness may be slowing. Sorry, guys.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> I'm more interested what position you would take on *my* words. What 
>> protection would you give to the few when the many are "just say(ing)" 
>> that their own rights rights outweigh those of the few? How would you 
>> protect those protections against the next occurrence of "just say(ing)"?
> 
> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.

IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> I don't know how many more ways I can say it. In a democracy, the 
>> "you" that judges each attempted infringement is the group doing the 
>> infringing. Do you not see a problem with that?
> 
> That's slightly disingenuous.  The group doing the infringing overlaps 
> the group that judges each attempt, but they're not necessarily the same 
> (nor are they necessarily distinct).
> 
> The group doing the judging, of course, would be the active voters, who 
> may or may not be the same as the group that benefits from any specific 
> legislation.

OK, I'll re-word it:
In a pure Democracy, The group doing the judging will act in its 
majority's *perceived* best interest. Identical meaning to my first 
(scratch that -- several) descriptions of the situation.

Admittedly, there are a *few* exceptions. Occasionally one hen manages 
to cajole two foxes into sparing her life -- for a day. Other times, the 
majority will help one minority, if this can be done with no perceived 
cost to themselves, at the expense of another.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
> 
> IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?

Amendment to allow individuals to hold slaves. Amendment to allow 
currently-owned slaves to go free. Which way would you vote? Why? Whose 
rights would you protect?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> The UK is not a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy. 

And sometimes kingdoms are considered "new" when a new king takes over 
that's not in the usual and expected line of succession, such as after 
conquering the country. I've seen lots of folks date GB from the time of 
Wilhelm the Conquerer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>>> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
>>
>> IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?
> 
> Amendment to allow individuals to hold slaves. Amendment to allow 
> currently-owned slaves to go free. Which way would you vote?

Amendment to allow currently-owned slaves to go free.

> Why? Whose 
> rights would you protect?
> 

Because the entire point of the amendment process is to grant the 
powerless freedom from the tyranny of the powerful, not to indenture one 
person to another.

A question back: would you ignore this amendment for the benefit of the 
majority?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>>> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
>>>
>>> IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?
>>
>> Amendment to allow individuals to hold slaves. Amendment to allow 
>> currently-owned slaves to go free. Which way would you vote?
> 
> Amendment to allow currently-owned slaves to go free.

What if the slaves are in the majority?

>> Why? Whose rights would you protect?
> 
> Because the entire point of the amendment process is to grant the 
> powerless freedom from the tyranny of the powerful, 

So, doctors and insurance companies are powerless, and the little old lady 
with cancer is powerful?

> A question back: would you ignore this amendment for the benefit of the 
> majority?

I'm not arguing either way in general. I think a government having limited 
powers is clearly beneficial over one having extraordinary powers. I don't 
think you'll ever prevent an entity with a local monopoly on force from 
eventually expanding to where those outside that monopoly are uncomfortable 
with it, which was my attempted point earlier. No amount of rules will make 
the enforcers of those rules obey the rules.

In any case, you seem to be alternating between "don't take my money to fund 
this" and "it'll hurt people because it's uncompetitive", unless I'm 
misremembering. I've been trying to get your take on a "public option" 
that's neither required nor funded by those not taking advantage of it, but 
I didn't actually get an answer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:58:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> The UK is not a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy. 
>
>And sometimes kingdoms are considered "new" when a new king takes over 
>that's not in the usual and expected line of succession, such as after 
>conquering the country. I've seen lots of folks date GB from the time of 
>Wilhelm the Conquerer.

Well they would be wrong. William the Conqueror (as we call him in these
"Sceptred Isles") was King of England. The first King of Great Britain was James
the VI of Scotland who became James I of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1603
(Wales was considered part of England then.) this was called the union of the
crowns.
It was only in 1707 when the Acts of Union were passed that the UK came into
being.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> OK, I'll re-word it:
> In a pure Democracy, The group doing the judging will act in its 
> majority's *perceived* best interest. Identical meaning to my first 
> (scratch that -- several) descriptions of the situation.

I still don't see how you can assume that.  Sure, it's likely, but it's 
not guaranteed, and it's only an assumption.

> Admittedly, there are a *few* exceptions. Occasionally one hen manages 
> to cajole two foxes into sparing her life -- for a day. Other times, the 
> majority will help one minority, if this can be done with no perceived 
> cost to themselves, at the expense of another.

You're assuming that the majority will always be comprised more of 
narcissists than philanthropists.  I'd be interested if anyone's ever 
done a study on the popularity of either ideal, but you have to at least 
admit that you're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Cool, I didn't know all that.  Thanks for the info :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:45:26 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>Cool, I didn't know all that.  Thanks for the info :)
>

I would say British history 101 but it is not even that. It is high school stuff
and much condensed. There is quite a bit of confusion about British history,
abroad. Because of England being the dominant country.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> OK, I'll re-word it:
>> In a pure Democracy, The group doing the judging will act in its 
>> majority's *perceived* best interest. Identical meaning to my first 
>> (scratch that -- several) descriptions of the situation.
> 
> I still don't see how you can assume that.  Sure, it's likely, but it's 
> not guaranteed, and it's only an assumption.
> 
>> Admittedly, there are a *few* exceptions. Occasionally one hen manages 
>> to cajole two foxes into sparing her life -- for a day. Other times, 
>> the majority will help one minority, if this can be done with no 
>> perceived cost to themselves, at the expense of another.
> 
> You're assuming that the majority will always be comprised more of 
> narcissists than philanthropists.  I'd be interested if anyone's ever 
> done a study on the popularity of either ideal, but you have to at least 
> admit that you're making an unsubstantiated assumption.
> 
> ...Chambers

Assumption, yes. Those are made when setting policy. Unsubstantiated, 
no. I lock my front door because I make the assumption that my getting 
robbed is more likely than some kind stranger entering my house and 
leaving a bag of gold coins on my pillow.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
Anyone who's followed this thread should know how I would answer these 
questions. But, "what the Hell?".

> 
> What if the slaves are in the majority?

A voting majority? History leads me to believe that a voting majority of 
slaves would likely just foolishly try to vote the non-slaves into 
deeper slavery than their own rather than free themselves, but they 
would at least have the means to free themselves. That's all we should 
offer them.

> So, doctors and insurance companies are powerless, and the little old 
> lady with cancer is powerful?

Yes, a little old lady with a terminal and expensive condition is very 
powerless. Nevertheless, she does have the means to purchase what health 
care she can afford, and we should aggressively fight against any 
corruption which raises her costs.

Might sound cruel, but we've got to accept that there is only so much 
money to go around for treatment just like there are only so many 
livers. Doesn't matter how you mix it, organize it, whatever.

There are things that could be done on the preventative side. We could 
discuss whether a State would benefit by providing publicly funded, 
preventative *only*, communicative disease *only* care; whether AIDS 
testing is a violation of privacy; and whether we should go even further 
and offer publicly funded screenings. But not today, please!

> 
> No amount of rules will make the enforcers of those rules obey 
> the rules.

True, but they do still require the complicity of the voters. The less 
money and power to be handed-out, the less complicit the voters are 
likely to be.

> 
> In any case, you seem to be alternating between "don't take my money to 
> fund this" and "it'll hurt people because it's uncompetitive", unless 
> I'm misremembering. I've been trying to get your take on a "public 
> option" that's neither required nor funded by those not taking advantage 
> of it, but I didn't actually get an answer.

A bad idea for the reason mentioned above. There would be nothing to 
stop the government (Remember that the stated goal of our President is 
single-payer) from engaging in illegal business practices to destroy the 
competition. The government might, for instance, operate at a loss until 
the free market alternatives were destroyed. This is illegal for a 
reason. The voters *could* stop it in the same way consumers *could* 
stop a private entity from using similar means to destroy the market, 
but they wouldn't. The voters would only see *temporarily* lower prices.

Going from a private to public system only changes the people at the 
top. Executives would be replaced by equally fallible and much more 
powerful people.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> Anyone who's followed this thread should know how I would answer these 
> questions. But, "what the Hell?".
> 
>>
>> What if the slaves are in the majority?
> 
> A voting majority?

Is that relevant?

> Might sound cruel, but we've got to accept that there is only so much 
> money to go around 

Are you sure? What do you mean by "money" here?

> Doesn't matter how you mix it, organize it, whatever.

Of course it does.

>> No amount of rules will make the enforcers of those rules obey the rules.
> True, but they do still require the complicity of the voters.

Not really.

>> In any case, you seem to be alternating between "don't take my money 
>> to fund this" and "it'll hurt people because it's uncompetitive", 
>> unless I'm misremembering. I've been trying to get your take on a 
>> "public option" that's neither required nor funded by those not taking 
>> advantage of it, but I didn't actually get an answer.
> 
> A bad idea for the reason mentioned above. There would be nothing to 
> stop the government (Remember that the stated goal of our President is 
> single-payer) from engaging in illegal business practices to destroy the 
> competition. The government might, for instance, operate at a loss until 
> the free market alternatives were destroyed. 

It has already happened.

> This is illegal for a reason. 

No it isn't. Not for the government, at least.

> The voters *could* stop it in the same way consumers *could* 
> stop a private entity from using similar means to destroy the market, 
> but they wouldn't. The voters would only see *temporarily* lower prices.

True, it's unlikely to stop things that are working.

> Going from a private to public system only changes the people at the 
> top. Executives would be replaced by equally fallible and much more 
> powerful people.

First, no, it would change more than that, because we're talking about 
something that becomes *more* "fair" and *more* valuable the bigger it gets. 
And two, people who are already participating in the government-run 
processes (both here and all over the world) of this type express much 
greater contentment than those participating in private American insurance. 
And three, most people have little or no choice about what insurance they 
buy, since it's usually through the employer. Not only is the insurance 
company making for-profit decisions for the insured, but so is the insured's 
employer - and any time you get a whole chain of people making choices like 
this for someone other than the beneficiary, you get inefficiency and 
generally bad results.

Sure, possibly over time it will get bad, at which point private industry 
can come back into play.

But look at it this way: there's no profit motive for the government to 
overcharge you premiums. The government can already take all the money they 
want from you. There's no need to overcharge your premiums to get more money 
to fund the government.

However, I'm guessing from both your tone and your earlier posts that you're 
completely closed to considering the situation on its own, so...

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Assumption, yes. Those are made when setting policy. Unsubstantiated, 
> no. I lock my front door because I make the assumption that my getting 
> robbed is more likely than some kind stranger entering my house and 
> leaving a bag of gold coins on my pillow.

You have to include not just people's proclivity for an activity, but 
their ability to perform it.

You having an unlocked door makes it easy for someone to walk in and 
take something, but their leaving a bag of gold coins requires that they 
first have that bag.

Assuming that everyone around you had plenty of gold coins, but that you 
yourself had none, I wonder how many people would be inclined to give 
you some.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:45:26 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Cool, I didn't know all that.  Thanks for the info :)
>>
> 
> I would say British history 101 but it is not even that. It is high school stuff
> and much condensed. There is quite a bit of confusion about British history,
> abroad. Because of England being the dominant country.

Even our own US history is relatively unknown to most of the people over 
here :(

Fun link for anyone so inclined:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stuff-you-missed-in-history-class-podcast.htm

Great podcast :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Great podcast :)

Wow. The only thing I have less patience for than youtube talking-head 
videos is talking-head videos without the video.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:38:30 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>Even our own US history is relatively unknown to most of the people over 
>here :(

Well that the youth of today, for you :)
I doubt that if I were English I would know so much about what I wrote. We Scots
tend to be a bit touchy about it ;)
That and the fact that I have worked abroad a lot means that I've had to explain
the difference between England, Britain, Great Britain and the UK.
If you asked most people in the UK about the history of say, the Netherlands,
which is only just over a hundred miles away at the nearest point. They would
not be able to tell you very much.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Well that the youth of today, for you :)
> I doubt that if I were English I would know so much about what I wrote. We Scots
> tend to be a bit touchy about it ;)
> That and the fact that I have worked abroad a lot means that I've had to explain
> the difference between England, Britain, Great Britain and the UK.

Well, I understand the difference between the different kingdoms and the 
UK, I just don't know the history of how it got to be the way it is.

What I know amounts to the Magna Carta being signed 800 years ago, and 
then a bunch of people got married (and one of them divorced).  OSLT :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:36:39 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>Well, I understand the difference between the different kingdoms and the 
>UK, I just don't know the history of how it got to be the way it is.
>

Did I miss out the bit where the Romans came and their part of Britain was
called Britannia? Then the Norwegians, Danes and Germans settled to form England
usw.

>What I know amounts to the Magna Carta being signed 800 years ago, and 
>then a bunch of people got married (and one of them divorced).  OSLT :)

That's about right :)
Although there is a little bit before the Magna Carta as well :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Did I miss out the bit where the Romans came and their part of Britain was
> called Britannia? Then the Norwegians, Danes and Germans settled to form England
> usw.
> 
>> What I know amounts to the Magna Carta being signed 800 years ago, and 
>> then a bunch of people got married (and one of them divorced).  OSLT :)
> 
> That's about right :)
> Although there is a little bit before the Magna Carta as well :P

Right, with the Romans ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> This is why discussion of what the majority might do with some newly 
> granted authority is of less importance than discussion of whether the 
> authority should be granted at all.

By the way, what makes you think establishing a public universal health care 
option needs any new authority?  The feds have had from day one the 
authority to take some of your income and spend it however they like. The 
16th amendment confirmed this. So what authority are they usurping by 
collecting some of your income as premiums and distributing that to those 
providing health care as necessary?

How does this differ from taking parts of your income and using it to pay 
for police, judges, fire fighters, etc?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message