Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 25, 2014, 01:13:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: national health care  (Read 14377 times)
dlmarti
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


Location: Mercer County, NJ


« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2008, 08:10:29 PM »

ooptec, I'm pretty much staying out of this conversation, but living near enough to the Canadian border I do have some observations.

Canadians frequently hop the border to have tests done in the US, the waiting list for specialized equipment is much longer in Canada.

I think if you look at the two health care systems objectively, you will find that the Canadian health care is superior for normal every day care (most people).  The US shines when complex procedures or equipment is needed (fewer people).

From my point of view I think Canada has a better system, but the US is incapable for replicating it.  Our bureaucracy is not as efficient.  A US govt. run health care system would be a disaster.

If you want a basic overview take a look at this site: Wiki page
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #81 on: April 05, 2008, 10:31:41 AM »

Quote
In fact there is no solid proof that crappy care is ever the result.


in fact, there is.  look at england.  one of the problems they point to over and over, is the large number of patients they have in the system.  out of 63 million people, i do not know how  many use NHS exclusively.  many people carry private insurance in case they really get sick.

kev, you want things to be fair.  that will never happen.  even if the govt completely took health care over, you would still not have the Utopian system you want.

you point to Medicare as a success.  in a limited way, it is.  consider what it take to keep Medicare working and people cared for.  it has a large tax base.  it has private medical care supporting it, not government run clinics.  it requires that members purchase supplemental insurance to be sure that they are covered for everything.  Medicare is a large entitlement.  we do not know how we will pay for it in the future.  the tax base is shrinking.  the population ages and more people are exempt from paying taxes as the magical poverty level is raised.  you want a consumer tax.  that is not a stable tax unless you are taxing things like food.  how high would this tax have to be?  what would an additional tax do to the economy? 

you think i went off with the dependency remark.  i'll give you that.  lets say there is no agenda.  what is the end result of government largess?  dependency.

i don't know if you followed Mici's Lisbon posts.  we all wonder why the people of Europe are being steamrolled by their governments into a union the people do not want.  why are the people no rising up?  one reason may be the history of these countries.  they are used to being subjects of the crown in one form or another.  even so, a revolution or two have happened in the past.  another reason?  in many of these countries, at least 50% of the population is dependent on the government for their daily needs.  housing, food, medical, income all provided and tax free.  why make a fuss?  as long as you are getting taken care of, none of these pesky things like sovereignty matter!

if we continue down this path, we will become, by plan or not, " The Loyal Subjects Of....."  rather than "WE THE PEOPLE".

WE THE PEOPLE didn't ask for fairness.  we asked for freedom from government .



Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
ooptec
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 196


Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada


WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 06, 2008, 11:14:54 AM »

Perhaps funding could be found from

(cut and paste)

Today, President Bush is right up there with the European dictators. His military spending has soared from $291 billion to a lavish $515 billion and he’s proposed a stunning $651 billion next year.

The Friends Committee on National Legislation, of Washington, D.C. says that 44 cents out of every dollar in his 2009 budget will go for war, compared with 2.2 cents for social programs. Typically, he calls for cutting 47 education programs while handing the generals 8% more.

Under Bush, U.S. military spending is now roughly equal to the combined total of all other nations.  What’s more, Uncle Sam is the world’s Number One arms peddler, selling about half of all weapons bought by the developing nations, and showing few scruples about sales to dictators. The Center for Defense Information reported last year that U.S. arms sales to 25 countries it studied increased 400 percent over 9/11.

Under Bush, the real wages of Americans have stagnated as well. Despite their fantastic productivity, U.S. workers are earning less today in real dollars than five years ago.  And restrictive laws make union organizing tougher than ever.

As ever more Americans lose their jobs and homes, favored Pentagon contractors reap record profits, not necessarily from operating on free market principles. Indeed, the Center for Public Integrity noted only one of the top 10 defense contractors “won a majority of its contracts through full and open competition. "

All the rest collected most of their contract dollars through sole source contracts or other no-bid procedures.” CPI identified Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, General Electric, Carlyle Group, and Newport News.

One might think in these hard times --- when the price of a gallon of gas has doubled in good part because of the Iraq war --- the White House might ask this supine Congress for a windfall profits tax on the oil majors.  With two former oil executives holding the two top jobs, though, that’s not likely to happen, any more than the Iraqi people will ever see the profits from their oil resource

(end paste)

Or not.

cheers

peter

Logged

reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #83 on: April 06, 2008, 04:36:19 PM »

Yep, whenever you can't find a good answer to a problem, bring up Bush.  What are you people going to do on 1/20/09 when you lose your main culprit?  Who are you going to blame then?
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
dlmarti
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


Location: Mercer County, NJ


« Reply #84 on: April 06, 2008, 05:46:01 PM »

Yep, whenever you can't find a good answer to a problem, bring up Bush.  What are you people going to do on 1/20/09 when you lose your main culprit?  Who are you going to blame then?

rejoice?  sorry I couldn't resist.  Sad

Honestly I don't hate Bush, if he walked into a bar I would have a beer with him, and wish him well.  He is just a lousy president, heck I would probably have been worse.

The real issue is if 9/11 hadn't happened Bush would have been a non-issue.  When we really needed a great president, we had a less than average one.  I think Carter, Bush Sr. and Reagan would have all gone into Afghanistan, but going into Iraq just didn't make any sense.

I also couldn't have imagined any president allowing the Patriot act to pass, at least none since the McCarthy era.

Those two huge mistakes will haunt the US for decades to come.  History books of the future will point to Bush, as the turning point where the US turned its back on Democracy.
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #85 on: April 06, 2008, 07:16:42 PM »

No matter who is the prez or what I think of him, every time this kind of talk flares up it just crosses my mind that the man can't do it all by himself.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #86 on: April 06, 2008, 07:16:53 PM »

i have a hard time understanding the fuss over the patriot act.  

it updates laws to take into account modern technology.  something much needed.
it causes intel and law enforcement to work together.  something much needed and killed off by a prior over-reaction by congress.
it was not handed down by god on stone tablets. it can be, and has been, debated and adjusted.
compared to the things other presidents have done during war, it is quite modest.

i have read it and find most who complain about it have not.

as for iraq, time will tell about that.  i am tending more and more to favor the action.  it certainly is a great place to build a nice big base and air field!
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
dlmarti
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


Location: Mercer County, NJ


« Reply #87 on: April 07, 2008, 05:15:36 PM »

i have read it and find most who complain about it have not.

You've read it?  All 300 plus pages?  That is quite an accomplishment, considering that most of the people who voted FOR the act didn't read it, and weren't given time too.

Naming a law the PATRIOT ACT, and putting it up for vote 45 days after 9/11, would have caused political suicide for anyone that didn't agree to it.  Do you honestly think it would have passed if it were named the "Arbitrary Removal of Civil Rights, without Oversight" act?  Of course not.

The act is unconstitutional, no one can argue that point.  No agency of the Federal Government should have the authority to violate a US citizens privacy on a whim, and without oversight.  Read the 4th Amendment if you don't believe me.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Section 206 allowing "john doe" wiretaps alone should prove that the act is unconstitutional.

If you ignore all the crap about how they just love Muslim people (since when do we put that kind of stuff in a law?), this act/law reads like its from a police state, not the US.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #88 on: April 07, 2008, 07:02:23 PM »

i read it all, then followed the later debates and changes. 

Quote
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Quote
Section 206 allowing "john doe" wiretaps alone should prove that the act is unconstitutional

define "unreasonable"

while i will be the first to say that the constitution should not be viewed as a "living instrument", i also recognize that the writers could  not have anticipated cell phones, computers, satellite phones, etc.  for that reason, the courts must take technology into account when they determine the constitutionality of a law.  legislators can, and do, pass all kinds of stuff.  it is up to the courts to determine whether or not a thing actually can be done legally.  all of the provisions of the patriot act will continue to be reviewed by courts, as they should be.

some of our greatest presidents have pitched the constitution in the trash for the sake of national security.  Lincoln did it and so did FDR.  it's not something i'd recommend, but when you go back and look at what they did and compare it to things like wire taps on suspected bad guys, the wire taps seem pretty tame.

it will be past my lifetime when the history of this shakes out.  knowing history is important when trying to form opinions. being aware that we don't know enough to write this story is also important.

if the people who voted for it didn't read it, they have no one but themselves to blame.  people who can waste my money on baseball steroid investigations, but not spend time examining changes in important laws, ought to be sent on home.

oh yah, i read the EU constitution too.  that was before they changed a few paragraphs and called it a treaty. it was really boring!   i might be a little AR..... tongue




Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
dlmarti
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


Location: Mercer County, NJ


« Reply #89 on: April 07, 2008, 08:13:57 PM »

compare it to things like wire taps on suspected bad guys, the wire taps seem pretty tame.

I wasn't talking about wire taps on suspects.

Thats not what the John Doe clause is about.

Their intent was complete surveillance and investigation on anyone that has had contact (even casual), with a suspect.  Even that wouldn't be so bad if there was oversight, but their isn't.

The reality of the situation is even worse, than the intent.  Without oversight, the John Doe warrants allow them to wire tap entire groups of people, that have nothing to do with the suspect, and to never be held accountable for it.

To date, the government has NOT shown that any arrests have been made through the act, that wouldn't have been made otherwise.  Yes, I agree that the government has sited several cases where it helped ("Lackawanna Six" for example), those were from the sharing section of the act (which isn't a violation of the constitution).  Even in that case the original, and final evidence for the case came from traditional sources.

Bottom line is, that if what you are doing can't stand oversight (I'm talking after the fact oversight, like a year), then it probably doesn't belong in the US.  Everyone that holds a position of power in the US, should have their actions subject to review, even non-public review.

I cannot even conceive of what sort of action that is being done to protect us, that can't stand to be reviewed by a closed (non-public) oversight committee.  It boggles the mind why so many Americans are accepting this.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #90 on: April 07, 2008, 08:56:25 PM »

206 has to do with roving wire taps.   not new.  what is new is that these taps are on devices rather than people, so anyone using the device might be listened to.  understandable concern.  with todays technology how do you get around something like that?  if a wing nut is using internet cafĂ©s or the library, do you not have to tap the machines?  if the offices of a group are used to plot, you tap the equipment.

you assume there is no oversight.  i think that is a faulty assumption.  neither of us can prove beyond a doubt our positions, but i think mine is stronger.  it is based in part on the fact that there are so many in and out of government who would love to nail this presidents hide to the wall.  if they could bring something to the courts or the people that would prove abuse, they would do it. congress often has classified briefings. i have watched them go in spouting about abuse, and come out very quiet......
 that said, things have been caught and reviewed and ruled on, and hopefully corrected. that is the system.

are there things we don't know?  of course.  the right to know is not in the constitution.

Quote
Their intent was complete surveillance and investigation on anyone that has had contact (even casual), with a suspect.

this is another assumption on your part.  what is your source.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
dlmarti
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


Location: Mercer County, NJ


« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2008, 09:09:51 PM »

Quote from: John Podesta is a visiting professor of law at the Georgetown University Law
Section 206

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) facilitates domestic intelligence gathering related to foreign powers by allowing the collection of such information without the legal restrictions associated with domestic law enforcement. Section 206 of the Patriot Act modernizes FISA wiretap authority. Previously, FISA required a separate court order be obtained for each communication carrier used by the target of an investigation. In the era of cell phones, pay phones, e-mail, instant messaging, and BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices such a requirement is a significant barrier in monitoring an individual’s communications. Section 206 allows a single wiretap to legally "roam" from device to device, to tap the person rather than the phone. In 1986, Congress authorized the use of roaming wiretaps in criminal investigations that are generally subject to stricter standards than FISA intelligence gathering, so extending this authority to FISA was a natural step.

The main difference between roaming wiretaps under current criminal law and the new FISA authority is that current criminal law requires that law enforcement "ascertain" that the target of a wiretap is actually using a device to be tapped. Section 206 contains no such provision. Ensuring that FISA wiretaps only roam when intelligence officials "ascertain" that the subject of an investigation is using a device, before it is tapped, would prevent abuse of this provision. For example, without the ascertainment requirement, it is conceivable that all the pay phones in an entire neighborhood could be tapped if suspected terrorists happened to be in that neighborhood. Bringing FISA roaming wiretaps in line with criminal roaming wiretaps would prevent such abuse and provide greater protection to the privacy of ordinary Americans.



I added the underlines.

Bottom line is that the Patriot act was passed as a knee jerk reaction to 9/11, I don't blame Bush, I blame congress.
They knew it was wrong to pass the law, but did it because they valued their positions more than their responsibilities.

We could continue this discussion forever, and neither one of us is going to solve the issue.

BTW, the quite comes from the American Bar Association, you can read their review of the Patriot Act here: Clicky
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2008, 10:04:23 PM »

i'm not sure Podesta would be my source for legal or intel advice.....but, i'll give this a last shot.

Quote
For example, without the ascertainment requirement, it is
conceivable that all the pay phones in an entire neighborhood could be tapped if
suspected terrorists happened to be in that neighborhood. Bringing FISA roaming
wiretaps in line with criminal roaming wiretaps would prevent such abuse and
provide greater protection to the privacy of ordinary Americans.

the pay phone example was one i was going to use.  this has been done.  it has been used in DEA activities.  one of the things that the PA did, was give to other law enforcement and intel, tools that the DEA has long used.

Quote
The main difference between roaming wiretaps under current criminal law and the new FISA authority is that current criminal law requires that law enforcement "ascertain" that the target of a wiretap is actually using a device to be tapped. Section 206 contains no such provision.

this was a great idea when the phone was nailed to the wall and computers did not exist.  go farther back to the days of the telegraph.  Lincoln tapped the telegraph lines.  no one ascertained that the people using the telegraph lines were breaking the law, or even suspected of breaking the law.  he even spied on his own people.

we have tapped the underwater cables.

FDR just ignore everyone and did what he wanted.

I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court decision relating to wiretapping in investigations, wiretapping should not be carried out for the excellent reason that it is almost always bound to lead to abuse of civil rights. However, I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation. It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of so-called "fifth columns" in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.... You are, therefore authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after the investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the government of the United States, including suspected spies.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.324 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page July 15, 2014, 08:17:56 AM