The Bear's Key

The last quote answers the first two. The Great Depression http://wcco.com/local/great.depression.art.2.754421.html "Seventy-five years ago this year, he (FDR) was elected in a landslide and he promised a New Deal for Americans. And part of that was to put Americans back to work," said Szott. In the wake of the Great Depression, the nation's unemployment rate in 1935 hit a whopping 25 percent. Soup lines were commonplace in many major U.S. cities. To help get America working again FDR created the "Works Progress Administration," a program designed largely to build public works projects. Many cities and towns around the state still have vestiges of the WPA, things like sports stadiums, river walks, public buildings and parks. http://www.forties.net/TheGreatDepression.html (the images speak a lot) Foresight It's government-intervention policies from back then which are keeping us on more solid footing today. Policies which have, since then, upped the bar height at which economic failure occurs. And so without them, the economy might've collapsed a while ago. One reason we have it better today is due to preventative actions taken before in the case of a repeat wholesale market failure.** An example of widespread damage caused by free market habits (in 3D Tunnel-Vision) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation or other techniques to prevent erosion.[1] Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had killed the natural grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. During the drought of the 1930s, with no natural anchors to keep the soil in place, it dried, turned to dust, and blew away eastward and southward in large dark clouds. At times the clouds blackened the sky reaching all the way to East Coast cities such as New York and Washington, D.C. Much of the soil ended up deposited in the Atlantic Ocean. Bashing of improved government Democrats and Republicans need their talking points to resonate and sound true. Any contradictions of reality weakens their party messages' bread and butter: votes.* Thus why Republicans can't afford to play ball if government intervention actually has even a bit of merit -- which yes, it does have some merit. As we can see (again) in the image below, sometimes a Party just doesn't like to play ball...when it hurts their attack platform. A pattern A decade of Republican Presidents led into.... the Great Depression (1920s) Clinton's need to rescue/reverse the budget deficit (1980 - 1992) our current environment (the last 8 years...a near decade ) The National Debt clock was even built in 1989 ( ) and halted in 2000, only to be rebuilt in 2002. Sure, the Congress has a part (as well)....but maybe it really all just boils down to an image problem of the ones sitting in the highest government office. *Not to mention $$ contributions. **Today's presence and free nature of the internet is likely another reason. ***Yes, the first two asterisks were done in reverse order (from the standard practice). And you're correct: there's no matching, relevance asterisks for this sentence.

Don't see an option for expanding the poll entries, but it'd skew the results because people started voting already

Nobody files chapter 13' date=' for paying Insurance Cost and filing does not absolve TAX debt to government in the US. (agreements can and often arranged while under chapter 13). [/quote'] I mentioned tax not as a cause of bankruptcy...rather as an illustration for comparison. Two systems: one universal, the other not. The first you pay taxes, the second you pay insurance. The first is unlikely to break your wallet, the second often does and even causes people to file bankruptcy -- 11,680 a year filing in the state of Michigan alone (with over $50,000 in medical debt). According to your figures. But imagine adding the other 49 states. That's a lot of freakin people. Do you see how in the UK (or Australia), paying the tax for universal healthcare causes far less of the bankruptcy filings of the U.S. due to healthcare bills -- even after having paid insurance?

Just remember FX (as in "special effects") and you'll be fine. Or maybe not. Can't promise ya anything.

Before the election, certain people went on about how Obama's a muslim and didn't trust him -- practically scared about it really. Bush followers (hanging on too much radio and emails). I used the opportunity to inform them how if elected, Obama was going to now have at his disposal all the executive powers amassed over the last 8 years....and how that's precisely why you don't f* around with Constitution, because if the wrong person gets in... Of course I like Obama, didn't think him the wrong person, and much rathered him elected than for Palin to be so freakin near the President's seat. But this is a major disappointment on Obama's part. I hope that he'll catch a whiff of the disappointment on his Blackberry. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9126258 "It's just one tool among a number of tools that I'm trying to use, to break out of the bubble, to make sure that people can still reach me," he told CNN. "If I'm doing something stupid, somebody in Chicago can send me an e-mail and say, 'What are you doing?' "I want to be able to have voices, other than the people who are immediately working for me, be able to reach out and send me a message about what's happening in America." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780205/wid/11915829?GT1=40006 The BlackBerry's symbolism and use is key to Obama personally. "I think he believes it’s a way of keeping in touch with folks," and not "getting stuck in a bubble," .... Obama views the connection to the outside world as vital, seeing it as a tool to help him “stay in touch with the flow of everyday life,” .... "I've been working with Barack Obama since before the election, and I know that without his virtual connection to old friends and trusted confidants beyond the bubble that seals off every president from the people who elected him, he'd be like a caged lion padding restlessly around the West Wing, wondering what's happening on the other side of the iron bars that surround the People's House,"

I second that. One core problem is: 4 healthcare lobbyists for every member of Congress. Under those conditions, any solution that emerges -- universal or pure market -- will likely just end up going to crap. Lobbyism has got to be cut many notches to a level of power below ours, the citizens.

The rub: they pay for it and yet can afford everything we can. Perhaps more. Does anyone go bankrupt in UK from paying medical taxes?

No, it was in a third-world like area, they plowed using bulls and no machines -- all hand labor. The processing centers, might they add things? I'll get to the bottom of it, and when I do, if everything's legit.....well I'm no stranger to defending a business industry wrongly accused or falsely targeted. But I'd investigate personally, 24 hour video documenting. I'll not just take someone's word about it, as I'm certain not everyone will just accept my findings without proof either.

I've worked on a farm, don't worry. Surprised the tabacco is hung-dried, it's pretty old-school way of doing it. That's cool. Do you ship it off to be rolled into cigarettes, or have it done there?

Damn. Walk away for a bit, and you miss all the fun. iNow's a mind reader -- woo! Wholesale, bulk quantities. Every purchaser has the option, and the most largest purchaser (and thus biggest saver) would be government. @ecoli: From here on, I'm just going to respond by quoting previous statements and/or responses (both in red). Originally Posted by ecoli The same can be said about any system...Originally Posted by The Bear's Key Correct. Originally Posted by ecoli ESPECIALLY universal care.Originally Posted by The Bear's Key Wrong (solely on the ESPECIALLY part. Notice how I said 'correct' directly above?). ... Originally Posted by The Bear's Key 2. Japan: Universal Coverage, No Gatekeepers ...see any specialist they want, and their costs are low. 4. Taiwan: A New System They Copied From Others ...free choice of doctors, no wait, lots of competition among providers, and gov't runs financing. ... The answer's a doozy... Originally Posted by The Bear's Key John Stossel.....the way he plays it: those examples of nations with quality health in a mixed system just don't exist. Originally Posted by The Bear's Key My point is that Singapore gets top-notch healthcare with a mixed system of public/private. . Originally Posted by The Bear's Key ...Siamese twins joined at the head went to Singapore in 2001 to be separated. The operation was the fifth and most complicated of its type, of which only one has succeeded. Before the operation... ....surgeons will have to determine which part of the brain belongs to which girl to ensure they get the correct speech and logic centres. Originally Posted by The Bear's Key ....28 specialists from all over came to help -- meaning: not just from the U.S.... http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2003-07/a-2003-07-07-54-Iranian.cfm 28 specialists, including experts from Singapore, the United States, France, Japan, Switzerland and Nepal.... . Originally Posted by The Bear's Key ....the technology is pretty advanced as you can see below. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/twins_pr.html ...planned this operation using a new generation of virtual reality anatomical models. Rather than depending solely on transparencies, they fed CT scans, MRIs, and angiograms into a software package released by Stanford's Image Guidance Laboratories in 2002. The software synthesizes hundreds of 2-D "slices" and renders them into a 3-D model that can be viewed on a PC screen. . Originally Posted by The Bear's Key The public hospital was successful (and the private one wasn't, ironically).....Thus it really shows us: either hospital is as good as the other. . Originally Posted by The Bear's Key International Patient Service Centres<*link*> .... Healthcare providers with International Patient Service Centres are listed below. Alexandra Hospital East Shore Hospital .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Over half the names they list are public facilities (with the rest obviously private). That lends credibility to public health, considering Singapore's ranking in the world. Originally Posted by The Bear's Key More tourist info... http://www.singaporemedicine.com Singapore is a leading destination, not only for business and leisure, but also for world-class, affordable and safe healthcare. ....a global reputation as a medical convention and training centre, a fast-growing basic and clinical research hub Singapore is just one of the many nations with quality healthcare that's mixed largely with public health. And it wasn't even part of the 5 nations on iNow's link. Originally Posted by The Bear's Key http://www.singaporemedicine.com/healthcaredest/sg.asp with internationally-accredited facilities and renowned physicians trained in the best centres in the world. Singapore's healthcare system was ranked as the sixth best in the world

Correct. Wrong. Didn't I already mention that? v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v And in a less direct manner, again... My point is that Singapore gets top-notch healthcare with a mixed system of public/private. By the way, doesn't Singapore look fairly capitalist (the night pic) just by viewing its infrastructure? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCan't hide from the real world forever, no matter what John Stossel tries to distract, especially with the internet still growing leaps and bounds.

I'd be willing to volunteer up to a week of labor at the farms and warehouses to verify that for myself. As it could be propoganda by anti-smokers, or not, but I couldn' find anything on an online search that's ultimately convincing of either. I should've phrased that better, as: *if* tabacco companies did that, I'd have a major beef with them and would support a ban on the practice.

Neither do I Don't smoke weed either. But for a lot of the same reason I fight against weed banning, I'm setting my foot down here. The compromise I offered is more than sufficient, and it's practical to others' health in that no smoke intrusion occurs. If we back down from that, the anti-crowd wants more. Except weed's fight is different -- it's a natural plant in unfair fight against 4 industries who are threatened, and whose greed helped fuel the drug crises. But....it's a matter for another thread. Widespread cigarette smoke bans is government nannying and overreaction in the manner of sweeping withdrawal (no pun) of zoned areas rather than practical compromise especially with something affecting free citizens. Now, I have a major beef with tabacco companies also. No questionable ingredients should ever be added to cigarettes. If the law banned that, good enough for me. But if people still light up afterwards, nothing we can do -- or shouldn't (by force at least).

Don't really like to hinge on that argument. It's a decent point, but if the gove deided to go ahead pay for the crop switch, you'd lose the biggest component of your argument. I'd keep it mainly at citizen's rights, with the problem of crop replacement as extra fluff. Heck if the nuke power industry's main argument was the cost to switch to green tech, I'd quick jump and say let's pay it. I sort of thought it good also, but it's more restrictive than my idea. Why have to construct new doors and ventilation? It's also more work to regulate. With my proposal....hey, you allow smoking -- where's the posted note? Instead of having to check for ventilation, proper doors, worker notices of refusal to work smoky areas, etc. My posted note is simple, brief, visible and writable by marker: "Smoking"

Can't retreat, she got you.

I think both statements are true. As do I But notice how I'm saying it's funny he avoided doing so within the same type of discussion or even near the same time frame. At the beginning, he presented the system as broken, with people going elsewhere for treatment. But when it came to his promotion of market greatness, he presented the system as best, with *important* people coming from elsewhere to seek our healthcare. Presenting those next to each other would've diluted his second point. The guy has done enough biased/underhanded reporting that it leads me to question if the people who came here did so because a rare specialist was necessary, and not because they distrusted medical care nearer to home. For example, Siamese twins joined at the head went to Singapore in 2001 to be separated. And they lived. The operation was the fifth and most complicated of its type, of which only one has succeeded. Before the operation... ....surgeons will have to determine which part of the brain belongs to which girl to ensure they get the correct speech and logic centres. Not long after the success of that procedure, a set of older Siamese twins wanted it done. If you see below, 28 specialists from all over came to help -- meaning: not just from the U.S. (the girls' age seemed to make it a lot deadlier) http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2003-07/a-2003-07-07-54-Iranian.cfm 28 specialists, including experts from Singapore, the United States, France, Japan, Switzerland and Nepal.... The girls had died unfortunately. But the technology is pretty advanced as you can see below. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/twins_pr.html ...planned this operation using a new generation of virtual reality anatomical models. Rather than depending solely on transparencies, they fed CT scans, MRIs, and angiograms into a software package released by Stanford's Image Guidance Laboratories in 2002. The software synthesizes hundreds of 2-D "slices" and renders them into a 3-D model that can be viewed on a PC screen. The public hospital was successful (and the private one wasn't, ironically), but that was largely due to the age difference between the procedures. Thus it really shows us: either hospital is as good as the other. Below's some info on what to expect from Singapore medical quality/treatment. International Patient Service Centres<*link*> Many healthcare providers in Singapore provide one-stop International Patient Service Centres to attend to the needs of international patients. To provide patients and their family members a hassle-free and pleasant stay in Singapore, the centres' experienced personnel offer assistance with a wide spectrum of services. .... Healthcare providers with International Patient Service Centres are listed below. Alexandra Hospital East Shore Hospital .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Over half the names they list are public facilities (with the rest obviously private). That lends credibility to public health, considering Singapore's ranking in the world. If anyone's curious as to which names are private/public, you can view the Wikipedia list of Singapore public and private hospitals. More tourist info... http://www.singaporemedicine.com Singapore is a leading destination, not only for business and leisure, but also for world-class, affordable and safe healthcare. With well-respected doctors trained in the best centres around the world, internationally-accredited hospitals and speciality centres, a global reputation as a medical convention and training centre, a fast-growing basic and clinical research hub Singapore is just one of the many nations with quality healthcare that's mixed largely with public health. And it wasn't even part of the 5 nations on iNow's link. John Stossel is either ignorant, dishonest, or both, as the way he plays it: those examples of nations with quality health in a mixed system just don't exist. http://www.singaporemedicine.com/healthcaredest/sg.asp with internationally-accredited facilities and renowned physicians trained in the best centres in the world. Singapore's healthcare system was ranked as the sixth best in the world The argument by "free" market politicians and reporters? It's seems to be a tactic of playing dumb, to get a compromise that ends up nearer to what they'd like.

The YouTube vid didn't show much that we haven't already discussed here, but the stat about 4 healthcare lobbyists for every member of Congress got my attention -- that's one main problem we need to really focus on. It's a bit sick (pun?). The other thing caught my eye was $300 for "that little pill". Unbelievable. It's insane to think of a normal-wage person (on cancer meds) having to shell out $300 for each pill. The other vids? John Stossel is a weasel (more on that below). It's funny in one vid he says people leave the U.S to get healthcare, while in another vid he says people come to the U.S. to get healthcare. iNow presented a vid that's not speculation or ideology arguments, but nations with real, verifiable systems, factual info -- actual models in existence of universal health working alongside private industry. All John Stossel gives us is back-and-forth arguments of market/government ideology with no real substance. And lots of clips to reveal the market's "superiority" in contrast to government. Besides just making arguments, he's stating the obvious (broken healthcare) and promoting his "free" market views as solutions. It's like they can't win by denying the problem, so they just admit there's a problem but offer to fix it with the same "market is best" approach. Not surprising for John Stossel, the guy who... said AIDS research gets too much funding. likes for classrooms to teach propaganda material he donates. thinks global warming shall not have negative effects. claimed alleged tests showed both organic and treated veggies have no pesticide residues -- yet no tests (whatsoever) had even been done. is underhandedly biased towards "free" markets. P.S. Have you even watched #2 and/or #4 in the OP vids? (reminder: Japan, Taiwan)

Maybe insane_alien was referring to UK not having guns? Not even cops -- except I think special units for when a gun confrontation is required?

(Annoying when a reference to studies -- made by a webpage -- has no citations of the date and title of each mentioned study) iNow, your first link might be perceived as unreliable since its they're anti-smoking But the other two links do seem to boost your assertion of no reduction in business. And I didn't think it'd be a problem in that regard either. However, it's not about the business, rather the issue's about people who'd like to smoke in certain restaurants/bars. You haven't responded to the part about where I offered that it's perfectly fine to disallow smoking in buildings with more than one store, plus in areas where people need to go through in order to reach a destination, including malls, subways, hallways, lobbies, and bus terminals -- for example. How would people smoking only in the remaining businesses that allowed it have an effect on you, if they had to place a smoking note visibly/prominently? If that couldn't affect non-smokers, then it's practically legislating morality.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen any evidence, facts, or reliable studies in connection to what's below. The linked pages provided absolutely no citations for verification. So it might be true, or not -- regardless, it's not science unless verifiable. I'm just adding it as curiosity pieces to the discussion and to hear input or verification/debunking from real science experts I think the OP might be referring to starches and proteins? The way it goes, supposedly, each creates an opposing digestive environment in the stomach, canceling the other's efforts and thus resulting in poor digestion. For example, starches trigger alkaline for digestion, while proteins trigger acid. Supposedly, both don't mix well in the stomach, but I'm not sure how much credibility this diet philosopy has. http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/foodc/don_t_mix_starch_meals_with_protein_meals_.html If starch is mixed with protein, the enzymes in the stomach are diluted and the stomach feels full for longer because digestion of protein is inefficient. Acid is being produced for every mixed meal, which puts the stomach under stress. The acid has to be neutralised by the bile salts for every meal, which puts the small intestine under stress. http://www.colonhealthinfo.com/diet/separation_diet.htm Problems arising from mixing proteins and starches. In brief, when high starches and high proteins are mixed at the same meal, there is too much acid to allow continued alkaline reduction of the starch, and too little acid to start digestion of the protein. This can result in a wide range of health problems. Fruits? Another supposed "poor" combination is fruits with anything else that digests slower. The reason given is that fruits "rot" in the stomach if left digesting over 30-40 minutes. The reason given is that the sugars begin to ferment in your stomach (when trapped by other food). http://www.soundvision.com/info/halalhealthy/halal.nutrition.asp Do not eat fruit after any other food or on an empty stomach. Fruits take 20 minutes to digest whereas other foods take 1-2 hours. When eaten one after another fruits ferment in the stomach while waiting for other foods to digest. This can cause bloating, belching and other non-desirable side effects. It is therefore recommended to eat fruits 20 minutes before your meal or 1-2 hours after your meal. http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Indigestion-And-Food-Combinations&id=629495 Let's start with fruits because this is the easiest to understand. Fruits should NEVER be eaten with anything. If you're going to eat fruit, eat it as a snack by itself or way after your meal is over as a dessert. Fruit will ferment with anything that you put with it. Also, do not eat sweet and sour fruits together. As for the remaining food groups, proteins and vegetables are excellent combinations. A nice salad of greens with some lean turkey or chicken is unlikely to cause indigestion. Do not put tomatoes in your salad. Tomatoes are fruits and will not mix well with everything else.

Let's expand that, shall we? - Sale of highly inappropriate things to children. - Organs without a paper trail - Voting machine software accuracy, defense mechanisms, traceability - Lab isolated/bioengineered viruses - Contaminants of widespread harm potential

Just quickly?? Awesome points there. Only by law. That's why a "free" market sucks at certain things like making sure everyone has insurance for vehicle accidents or treating illness/injury. No one in the world does, a truly free market system exists nowhere. Except perhaps in the poorest and most rogue of nations. (And that seems to be the result)

Like any human component, we must exercise foresight to maintain an optimal level. Use it or lose it. You hit the nail smack! right on the head -- let's see..... Major assumption? Yes. Far beyond that. Remember, Bush sent the U.S. practically alone with a few strays tagging along for posturing a supposed "coalition". Highly doubtful. They'd need satellite covearge to know location of ships, not to mention our air power isn't targetable by nukes. And even as ships neared land, they wouldn't be all huddled together as a gift for Iran's leader. Not only that, but remember how many SCUDs actually reached their goals against Patriot missiles? The same with nukes, knocked from the air like the SCUDs with common missiles, and by spending our concentration mostly on interception rather than nuclear retaliation, it's more likely we'd refine the defense capabilites even more. I like to play strategy games -- not the warfare kinds usually -- but if you want to play with you having Iran's resources including 20 nukes and I having only the developed world's non-nuclear technology, resources and military power, I'd likely wipe you off the map and have fewer casualties. Foresight. Extrapolate a bit down the line to WGDs, or weapons of global destruction. And say many nations had at least one. Tell us, where'd the deterrent go? That position has been lost, it's old news. The weapons have become hand-transportable, in suitcases or more easily concealed packages. Which is due to lack of foresight, like the people who didn't account for Y2K -- that a year 2000 would ever come around. Funny how it didn't become a gloabl realization until the last minute practically. So think ahead, you're way better off than making predictions using isolated variables.

People, do we really want to step across that line? What of concerts being too loud for people with sensitive ears? Or in a bar where the entertainment is a loud band? Next we'll get a nice dose of harmful movies we shouldn't allow because they *cause* violence and mental craziness. And same for video games that might affect innocent bystanders. Then you got car stereos or people with music outdoors, which might intrude on the sensibilities of those who can't stand the godawful and *malignant* content. Go ahead, open the can of worms. Guaranteed you won't like the contents. My proposal covers that. In areas where people must travel to reach a destination, it's off-limits for smoking. And in restaurants/businesses where it's allowed, require a "smoking" note tacked prominently. There's a way to do things smartly, and a way to royally screw it up by unforeseen dominoes crashing into other areas of everyone's lives.

Nope. Big cities have tons of restaurants. Then have businesses be required to hang a "smoking" note visibly if they allow the practice. Bad argument that could lead into other cultural vices not good for you being taken away by lack of foresight and respect for others' personal health decisions. True enough. I've done so myself. But if the smoke bothered me, I'd stay home, not expect others to cater to my will. How so, when I specifically mentioned the areas where people have to go through (to reach a destination) as off-limits for smoking? Same response. This bad argument could lead into other enjoyed vices not good for you being excessively restricted and then outlawed.