On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:03:14 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:

>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would be
>>> expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from both
>>> a social and economic perspective.
>>
>> From another post of yours a little further down:
>>
>>> I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large 'C')
>>>
>>
>> Those two statements don't support each other.
>
>Only from your narrow perspective.

Not a narrow perspective, a different perspective. That's all. By
the same token, yours isn't a narrow perspective of what it means
here, just different. That's what I was trying to determine and
believe, at this point, I've done.

>I am a member of the UK Conservative party, the main right wing UK political
>party which believes in the free market, self-determination and low tax, low
>public spending.
>
>Within that group the majority subscribe to 'one-nation' conservatism which
>in essence believes that through the success of the free market and whilst
>keeping public spending to a minimum, the whole country benefits financially
>from certain social expenditure such as ensuring the less well-off are
>healthy and well educated so that they can be more productive.

We've found that after dumping trillions of dollars into entitlement
programs that basically nothing has changed in over 30 years. Except
the number of entitlement programs.

>A good example is the national health service - essentially a socialist
>ideal, but in fact a well run NHS costs tax-payers less per month than
>private healthcare, leaving them more disposable income to do what they like
>with than forcing them to spend more on private healthcare. This leaves more
>income to be spent in the economy with the resultant benefits.

I liked National Health. What are Pip Pyle and those guys up to these
days?

Nevermind.

"John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
news:0T6Oa.2244$7e.124@fed1read07...
>
> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> news:uv5Oa.14002$Ha.11219@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > news:975Oa.2223$7e.173@fed1read07...
> > >
> > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> > > news:t45Oa.13892$Ha.514@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "John Hinckley" <Aiming@atBush.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:WN4Oa.2216$7e.2154@fed1read07...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Fw4Oa.4744$19.1850@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Paul Jensen" <pjensen@gnt.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:vghj68biiijic8@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > Tell me bright eyes how many more republicans are on
the
> > > > welfare
> > > > > > roles
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > to lack of education, then democrats.
> > > > > > > > > > > It was a democrat that designed the palm beach ballot
in
> > 2000
> > > > and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > democrats who could not figure out what it said, a
great
> > > > > > testimonial
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > democratic intellectual abilities.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're wrong on all counts as usual. However, this is
not
> > the
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > forum
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > testicularly deprived chickenhawks like you to pound
their
> > > > > > chests.....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How is he wrong? You mean it was Republicans complaining
> > because
> > > > they
> > > > > > > > voted
> > > > > > > > > for the wrong candidate? You made the accusation he was
> > wrong -
> > > > now
> > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > up!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But that's like trying to get facts from a Liberal....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh yes and you are the Oracle of Karl Rovian bull****. Isn't
it
> > > > > > uncomfortable having your
> > > > > > > head crammed up his ass?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't know, I'm a conservative (look at this - I'm here one
day
> > and
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > already arguing at a third grade level)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't need to tell us you are a Pubican goose-stepper. It
drips
> > out
> > > > of your
> > > > > ill-informed flat earth posts
> > > >
> > > > Not a republican, an agnostic fiscal conservative is as close to a
> > workable
> > > > label as I've come up with. Personal responsibility is my watchword.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > well we're close on the agnostic part...that alone would get you
drummed
> > out of the
> > > Pubican Party.... Personal responsibility? I have to go battle with
two
> > assholes Tuesday;
> > > they did $6000 damage to my truck and won't accept responsibility for
> > it.....
> >
> > There's a lot of that around here (Mass). It no longer seems to be about
> > doing what's right, but what one can get away with. Best we can do is
stay
> > true to our ethical code.
>
>
> My ethical code means spending $3000 to prove a point; namely that these
parties are scum.
>


Several times, I have confused lawyers by being willing to spend more than I
stood to save while fighting something. Too often the legal system is used
as extortion. If you are in the right, never give in.

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:y%9Oa.77016$%L.32433@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >> A command economy is one run by the state like the old soviet union.
> >
> > How does that work?
> > Like: "I command the Frakenzy to be of worth equal to half a Euro"?
> > or "The stocks will rise now!"?
>
> No, more along the lines of we (the govt.) own all the means of production
> and control the s income of those who buy the production. Thus we control
> both sides of the economy directly.


And some people think this is a good idea? Any that aren't part of the
government?

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:NcaOa.77017$%L.6314@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:%93Oa.76197$%L.68601@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:23:42 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am an
> >>>>>> Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right wing
> >>>>>> party and the republicans are the even more right wing party?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists and
> >>>>> the Republicans are the liberals.
> >>>>
> >>>> Democrats are socialists?
> >>>>
> >>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx ) you need to
> >>>> believe in:
> >>>>
> >>>> State ownership of big business.
> >>>>
> >>>> A command economy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Redistribution of wealth.
> >>>>
> >>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
> >>>> politcal struggle.
> >>>>
> >>>> State provision of services.
> >>>>
> >>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
> >>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the face!
> >>>> ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps you need to look a bit closer. I'm not familiar with the
> >>> phrase "command economy", but everything else you mentioned is dead
> >>> on what the Democrats want.
> >>
> >> Really? Which industries have the democrats nationalised recently?
> >>
> >> If they were socialists a national health service would be top of
> >> their list, but they don't ssem to have provided one yet.
> >>
> >
> > We run into a little trouble with that one. Since largely it is US
> > companies fronting the bill for the R&D that provides cheapers better
> > drugs and procedures for the rest of the world it becomes difficult
> > for US to achieve a leechbased healthcare system without putting at
> > least some of the cost on the non-producers.
>
> I'm afraid thats not true. Global Trade Information Services show that the
> US exported 8695 and imported 14309 GBP Millions pharamceuticals in 2002.
> The UK by comparison exported 10031 and imported 7446. We don't put the
> costs on the non-producers, so why would you need to?

I'd be very curious to see how pharameceuticals is defined to make that
statistic true.
I'd also be curious to know how many of said drugs are we originally
developed or knockoffs thereof.

> Since this is totally
> > unacceptable to leechvoters and hugely unpopular with those that
> > would end up footing the rest of the bill, it has trouble even being
> > formed to come for a vote. Take recent events where Bush has said
> > "Get me a healthcare bill, I'll sign it" and then the press starts
> > giving out the details that it will (gasp) cost some more than they
> > are getting back (they wanted the magical cow to pay for it all),
> > suddenly they are all up in arms and it probably won't get passed.
>
> I'm not saying you should have a national health service, thats a choice
for
> your electorate, but I do suspect the arguments are not being fairly
> assessed.

I call them like I see them.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:03:14 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would
>>>> be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from
>>>> both a social and economic perspective.
>>>
>>> From another post of yours a little further down:
>>>
>>>> I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large
>>>> 'C')
>>>
>>> Those two statements don't support each other.
>>
>> Only from your narrow perspective.
>
> Not a narrow perspective, a different perspective. That's all. By
> the same token, yours isn't a narrow perspective of what it means
> here, just different. That's what I was trying to determine and
> believe, at this point, I've done.
>
Perhaps narrow was unfair - but the debate does seem either black or white
from here.

>> I am a member of the UK Conservative party, the main right wing UK
>> political party which believes in the free market,
>> self-determination and low tax, low public spending.
>>
>> Within that group the majority subscribe to 'one-nation'
>> conservatism which in essence believes that through the success of
>> the free market and whilst keeping public spending to a minimum, the
>> whole country benefits financially from certain social expenditure
>> such as ensuring the less well-off are healthy and well educated so
>> that they can be more productive.
>
> We've found that after dumping trillions of dollars into entitlement
> programs that basically nothing has changed in over 30 years. Except
> the number of entitlement programs.
>
It is a difficult balancing act to manage, but if we can, you can.

>> A good example is the national health service - essentially a
>> socialist ideal, but in fact a well run NHS costs tax-payers less
>> per month than private healthcare, leaving them more disposable
>> income to do what they like with than forcing them to spend more on
>> private healthcare. This leaves more income to be spent in the
>> economy with the resultant benefits.
>
> I liked National Health. What are Pip Pyle and those guys up to these
> days?
>
> Nevermind.

Cleaners in the Brompton Road Hospital IIRC.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:y%9Oa.77016$%L.32433@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>>> A command economy is one run by the state like the old soviet
>>>> union.
>>>
>>> How does that work?
>>> Like: "I command the Frakenzy to be of worth equal to half a Euro"?
>>> or "The stocks will rise now!"?
>>
>> No, more along the lines of we (the govt.) own all the means of
>> production and control the s income of those who buy the production.
>> Thus we control both sides of the economy directly.
>
>
> And some people think this is a good idea? Any that aren't part of the
> government?

Lots of people thought it was a good idea for a long time, got no chance of
actually working though.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:5jaOa.77018$%L.1677@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:T73Oa.76196$%L.10957@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:Oj1Oa.76183$%L.67657@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am an
> >>>>>> Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right wing
> >>>>>> party and the republicans are the even more right wing party?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists and
> >>>>> the Republicans are the liberals.
> >>>>
> >>>> Democrats are socialists?
> >>>>
> >>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx ) you need to
> >>>> believe in:
> >>>>
> >>>> State ownership of big business.
> >>>
> >>> Actually that's too much work for them, they just believe in taxing
> >>> it into submission.
> >>>
> >> So no then.
> >
> > I'd put it down as a sort of. It's not that they don't want it, it's
> > just that they screw up each company that they try this one. They
> > can't do it out right so it's a lot of smoke and mirrors, regulate
> > everything so tightly that it might as well be run by the government
> > (ironically: California calls this deregulation). But do they believe
> > in it and lust for it, I think so.
> >
> So they have actually tried a compulsory purchase of a national industry
> which then subsequently failed?

As I said previously anything antithecal to vast majority of the public is
never do straight out in this country. So rather than buy a company
outright, they set rigid limits on what it can charge, and set up a billion
rules it must comply to. Essentially running the company through
legistration rather than by direct hand. So it's not like in a socialist cou
ntry, be we were refering to what they believe in and desire.

>
> >>>>
> >>>> A command economy.
> >>>>
> >> Well?
> >
> > I skipped this because I'm not sure what this means and I'm too lazy
> > to look it up today.
> >
> Sorry - it's an economy where the govt control the means of production.

Admittedly here, we have only reached the point of the govt limiting and
undermining the means of production.

> >>
> >>>> Redistribution of wealth.
> >>>
> >>> Big time. Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
> >>>
> >> Hmmm. . . . . .could you elucidate please.
> >
> > The Top half of all American Wage Earners Pay almost all Income taxes.
> > Nope that probably didn't help. Damned IRS moved everything around
> > again, I'll have to go with this link:
> > http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html
> >
> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would be
> expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from both a
> social and economic perspective.

I don't feel like debating that at the moment. But my point was that the
Libs are for ever higher rates on the top tax brackets, more people on the
bottom paying ever lower amounts of taxes, and more and more social programs
for those unable or unwilling to help themselves. So clearly they believe in
and are very efficient at redistribution of wealth.

>
> >>>
> >>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
> >>>> politcal struggle.
> >>>
> >>> Definately.
> >>>
> >>>> State provision of services.
> >>>
> >>> Don't know how strongly they feel about publicizing everything, but
> >>> they show do go ballistic whenever talk of privitizing something
> >>> comes up.
> >>>
> >> So what public services are provided by the democrats that aren't by
> >> the republicans?
> >>
> >>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
> >>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the face!
> >>>> ;-)
> >>>
> >>> OK, we'll just call em 4/5 socialists then....
> >>
> >> Not even 5% socialists - must try harder.
> >
> > Wow, if that's 5% then they must whip most kids straight out of the
> > delivery room into a bubblewrap crate designed for safety and health,
> > while pushing the few producers to breaking point to keep society
> > going. No, too far from one of my concepts of hell.
> > What's good side for the non-leeches?
>
> You seem somewhat dogmatic - a nations success surely must not only be
> measured in dollars, but also how it looks after it's less fortunate
> citizens and I say this a right wing Conservative.
>

Where as I believe that a country is only as strong as the intregity of it's
people.
And intregity I measure by the individuals belief in personal reponsiblity.
And that I see (by which I mean I observe it happening in this country) as
undermined by the entitlement mindset.

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

"scrape at mindspring dot com" <scrape@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:77iigv85k0e7qrn2akh1q0jacjrg2cgoh4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:37:21 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would be
> >expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from both a
> >social and economic perspective.
>
> From another post of yours a little further down:
>
> >I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large 'C')
>
> Those two statements don't support each other.
>


I suppose they could from a socialist viewpoint.
Tell me Exit, what beliefs of yours seperate you from your more liberal
countrymen?

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:6kdOa.77685$%L.42376@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:37:21 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would be
> >> expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from both
> >> a social and economic perspective.
> >
> > From another post of yours a little further down:
> >
> >> I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large 'C')
> >>
> >
> > Those two statements don't support each other.
>
> Only from your narrow perspective.
>
> I am a member of the UK Conservative party, the main right wing UK
political
> party which believes in the free market, self-determination and low tax,
low
> public spending.
>
> Within that group the majority subscribe to 'one-nation' conservatism
which
> in essence believes that through the success of the free market and whilst
> keeping public spending to a minimum, the whole country benefits
financially
> from certain social expenditure such as ensuring the less well-off are
> healthy and well educated so that they can be more productive.
>
> A good example is the national health service - essentially a socialist
> ideal, but in fact a well run NHS costs tax-payers less per month than
> private healthcare, leaving them more disposable income to do what they
like
> with than forcing them to spend more on private healthcare. This leaves
more
> income to be spent in the economy with the resultant benefits.


Okay, help me out with this one. If every customer (or citizen if you
prefer) is getting more service than they are paying taxes to cover.... How
is this possible? Or to put it another way, who is getting shafted? The
health providers?

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:Z0fOa.77776$%L.66539@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:y%9Oa.77016$%L.32433@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >>>> A command economy is one run by the state like the old soviet
> >>>> union.
> >>>
> >>> How does that work?
> >>> Like: "I command the Frakenzy to be of worth equal to half a Euro"?
> >>> or "The stocks will rise now!"?
> >>
> >> No, more along the lines of we (the govt.) own all the means of
> >> production and control the s income of those who buy the production.
> >> Thus we control both sides of the economy directly.
> >
> >
> > And some people think this is a good idea? Any that aren't part of the
> > government?
>
> Lots of people thought it was a good idea for a long time, got no chance
of
> actually working though.

Do you feel that way becuase you feel it is inherently unworkable or because
it can't be properly developed because people are involved (and flawed).



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:58:28 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:

>> We've found that after dumping trillions of dollars into entitlement
>> programs that basically nothing has changed in over 30 years. Except
>> the number of entitlement programs.
>>
>It is a difficult balancing act to manage, but if we can, you can.

Personally, I'd like to see everything scrapped and start over from
point A. If it can't prove itself to be effective in some
predetermined amount of time, kill it off forever.

>> I liked National Health. What are Pip Pyle and those guys up to these
>> days?

>Cleaners in the Brompton Road Hospital IIRC.

Anywhere near Tenemos Roads?

Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:6kdOa.77685$%L.42376@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:37:21 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would
>>>> be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from
>>>> both a social and economic perspective.
>>>
>>> From another post of yours a little further down:
>>>
>>>> I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large
>>>> 'C')
>>>
>>> Those two statements don't support each other.
>>
>> Only from your narrow perspective.
>>
>> I am a member of the UK Conservative party, the main right wing UK
>> political party which believes in the free market,
>> self-determination and low tax, low public spending.
>>
>> Within that group the majority subscribe to 'one-nation'
>> conservatism which in essence believes that through the success of
>> the free market and whilst keeping public spending to a minimum, the
>> whole country benefits financially from certain social expenditure
>> such as ensuring the less well-off are healthy and well educated so
>> that they can be more productive.
>>
>> A good example is the national health service - essentially a
>> socialist ideal, but in fact a well run NHS costs tax-payers less
>> per month than private healthcare, leaving them more disposable
>> income to do what they like with than forcing them to spend more on
>> private healthcare. This leaves more income to be spent in the
>> economy with the resultant benefits.
>
>
> Okay, help me out with this one. If every customer (or citizen if you
> prefer) is getting more service than they are paying taxes to
> cover.... How is this possible? Or to put it another way, who is
> getting shafted? The health providers?

Errr. . . .no, because they are not.

It's quite simple really, the NHS does not generate profit, so instead of x%
going to the shareholders of your HMO, it goes back into the service meaning
customers get their heath at cost rather than retail. No one gets shafted.
The govt doesn't pay 3rd party health providers, it owns all the hospitals
and employs all the staff.

Of course it's not perfect, but my experiences have all been very favourable
and despite my employer providing me with private healthcare, I have always
used the NHS instead and been satisfied.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

Papa Smurf wrote:
> "scrape at mindspring dot com" <scrape@mindspring.com> wrote in
> message news:77iigv85k0e7qrn2akh1q0jacjrg2cgoh4@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:37:21 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would
>>> be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from
>>> both a social and economic perspective.
>>
>> From another post of yours a little further down:
>>
>>> I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large
>>> 'C')
>>
>> Those two statements don't support each other.
>>
>
>
> I suppose they could from a socialist viewpoint.
> Tell me Exit, what beliefs of yours seperate you from your more
> liberal countrymen?

We don't use the term liberal in the same perjorative sense as you chaps do,
as the 3rd political party in the UK is the Liberal party.

I am separated from my more socialist countrymen by my beliefs in the free
market, low taxes and low public spending. Perhaps the difference between my
views and the dogma you appear to represent is that I am willing to accept
any parts of 'socialism' when they are proven to work, such as the NHS.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:5jaOa.77018$%L.1677@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>> news:T73Oa.76196$%L.10957@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Oj1Oa.76183$%L.67657@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am an
>>>>>>>> Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right wing
>>>>>>>> party and the republicans are the even more right wing party?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists
>>>>>>> and the Republicans are the liberals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Democrats are socialists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx ) you need to
>>>>>> believe in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> State ownership of big business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually that's too much work for them, they just believe in
>>>>> taxing it into submission.
>>>>>
>>>> So no then.
>>>
>>> I'd put it down as a sort of. It's not that they don't want it, it's
>>> just that they screw up each company that they try this one. They
>>> can't do it out right so it's a lot of smoke and mirrors, regulate
>>> everything so tightly that it might as well be run by the government
>>> (ironically: California calls this deregulation). But do they
>>> believe in it and lust for it, I think so.
>>>
>> So they have actually tried a compulsory purchase of a national
>> industry which then subsequently failed?
>
> As I said previously anything antithecal to vast majority of the
> public is never do straight out in this country. So rather than buy a
> company outright, they set rigid limits on what it can charge, and
> set up a billion rules it must comply to. Essentially running the
> company through legistration rather than by direct hand. So it's not
> like in a socialist cou ntry, be we were refering to what they
> believe in and desire.
>
Ahhh, I see your definition. In truth nationalisation really involves the
creation of a state owned monopoly which would mean for example, your govt
buying every electricity company in the US, lumping them all together and
calling it American Energy Inc or similar. What you describe seems to be
simply heavy handed remote control.

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A command economy.
>>>>>>
>>>> Well?
>>>
>>> I skipped this because I'm not sure what this means and I'm too lazy
>>> to look it up today.
>>>
>> Sorry - it's an economy where the govt control the means of
>> production.
>
> Admittedly here, we have only reached the point of the govt limiting
> and undermining the means of production.
>
>>>>
>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Big time. Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. . . . . .could you elucidate please.
>>>
>>> The Top half of all American Wage Earners Pay almost all Income
>>> taxes. Nope that probably didn't help. Damned IRS moved everything
>>> around again, I'll have to go with this link:
>>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html
>>>
>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would be
>> expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from both
>> a social and economic perspective.
>
> I don't feel like debating that at the moment. But my point was that
> the Libs are for ever higher rates on the top tax brackets, more
> people on the bottom paying ever lower amounts of taxes, and more and
> more social programs for those unable or unwilling to help
> themselves. So clearly they believe in and are very efficient at
> redistribution of wealth.
>
Out of interest, here low earners pay about 22% income tax and the top rate
is 40% even for millionaires - and everyone gets an annual tax free
allowance of around $8000 before they start paying tax. How does that
compare with the US tax system currently?

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
>>>>>> politcal struggle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Definately.
>>>>>
>>>>>> State provision of services.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know how strongly they feel about publicizing everything,
>>>>> but they show do go ballistic whenever talk of privitizing
>>>>> something comes up.
>>>>>
>>>> So what public services are provided by the democrats that aren't
>>>> by the republicans?
>>>>
>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
>>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the face!
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, we'll just call em 4/5 socialists then....
>>>>
>>>> Not even 5% socialists - must try harder.
>>>
>>> Wow, if that's 5% then they must whip most kids straight out of the
>>> delivery room into a bubblewrap crate designed for safety and
>>> health, while pushing the few producers to breaking point to keep
>>> society going. No, too far from one of my concepts of hell.
>>> What's good side for the non-leeches?
>>
>> You seem somewhat dogmatic - a nations success surely must not only
>> be measured in dollars, but also how it looks after it's less
>> fortunate citizens and I say this a right wing Conservative.
>>
>
> Where as I believe that a country is only as strong as the intregity
> of it's people.
> And intregity I measure by the individuals belief in personal
> reponsiblity. And that I see (by which I mean I observe it happening
> in this country) as undermined by the entitlement mindset.

We both believe similar things then, but my belief in my fellow Englishmen
leads me to trust that their self-respect will allow them only to use
entitlement as a last resort, whereas you seem to think many Americans will
immediately give up trying if they can get the basics for free.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:NcaOa.77017$%L.6314@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%93Oa.76197$%L.68601@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:23:42 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am an
>>>>>>>> Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right wing
>>>>>>>> party and the republicans are the even more right wing party?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists
>>>>>>> and the Republicans are the liberals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Democrats are socialists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx ) you need to
>>>>>> believe in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> State ownership of big business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A command economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
>>>>>> politcal struggle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> State provision of services.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
>>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the face!
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you need to look a bit closer. I'm not familiar with the
>>>>> phrase "command economy", but everything else you mentioned is
>>>>> dead on what the Democrats want.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Which industries have the democrats nationalised recently?
>>>>
>>>> If they were socialists a national health service would be top of
>>>> their list, but they don't ssem to have provided one yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We run into a little trouble with that one. Since largely it is US
>>> companies fronting the bill for the R&D that provides cheapers
>>> better drugs and procedures for the rest of the world it becomes
>>> difficult for US to achieve a leechbased healthcare system without
>>> putting at least some of the cost on the non-producers.
>>
>> I'm afraid thats not true. Global Trade Information Services show
>> that the US exported 8695 and imported 14309 GBP Millions
>> pharamceuticals in 2002. The UK by comparison exported 10031 and
>> imported 7446. We don't put the costs on the non-producers, so why
>> would you need to?
>
> I'd be very curious to see how pharameceuticals is defined to make
> that statistic true.

Same way the US Govt defines it.

> I'd also be curious to know how many of said drugs are we originally
> developed or knockoffs thereof.
>
None are knockoffs, the UK is one of the worlds leading pharmaceutical
developers, not some 3rd world sweat shop copying US drugs. US Giant Pfizer
is the worlds biggest pharmaceutical co. with 7.5% of the world market
share. GlaxoSmithKline in the UK have 7.0% of the world market and none of
the other US companies comes close. Bear in mind that 53% of the worlds
patents are registered to UK individuals or companies and a significant part
of that is pharmaceutical.

>> Since this is totally
>>> unacceptable to leechvoters and hugely unpopular with those that
>>> would end up footing the rest of the bill, it has trouble even being
>>> formed to come for a vote. Take recent events where Bush has said
>>> "Get me a healthcare bill, I'll sign it" and then the press starts
>>> giving out the details that it will (gasp) cost some more than they
>>> are getting back (they wanted the magical cow to pay for it all),
>>> suddenly they are all up in arms and it probably won't get passed.
>>
>> I'm not saying you should have a national health service, thats a
>> choice for your electorate, but I do suspect the arguments are not
>> being fairly assessed.
>
> I call them like I see them.

Of course you do, but I suspect political dogma gets in the way of a fair
assessment of whether a NHS would help or hinder your country.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:Z0fOa.77776$%L.66539@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>>> news:y%9Oa.77016$%L.32433@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>>>>> A command economy is one run by the state like the old soviet
>>>>>> union.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does that work?
>>>>> Like: "I command the Frakenzy to be of worth equal to half a
>>>>> Euro"? or "The stocks will rise now!"?
>>>>
>>>> No, more along the lines of we (the govt.) own all the means of
>>>> production and control the s income of those who buy the
>>>> production. Thus we control both sides of the economy directly.
>>>
>>>
>>> And some people think this is a good idea? Any that aren't part of
>>> the government?
>>
>> Lots of people thought it was a good idea for a long time, got no
>> chance of actually working though.
>
> Do you feel that way becuase you feel it is inherently unworkable or
> because it can't be properly developed because people are involved
> (and flawed).

Inherently unworkable because the prime motivator for most prople to achieve
is personal gain and 'the good of the state' doesn't often cut it. Still
there are bits of it worth stealing, painting red, white and blue and
running up the flagpole.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:BFgOa.77785$%L.34555@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> > "scrape at mindspring dot com" <scrape@mindspring.com> wrote in
> > message news:77iigv85k0e7qrn2akh1q0jacjrg2cgoh4@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:37:21 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would
> >>> be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from
> >>> both a social and economic perspective.
> >>
> >> From another post of yours a little further down:
> >>
> >>> I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large
> >>> 'C')
> >>
> >> Those two statements don't support each other.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I suppose they could from a socialist viewpoint.
> > Tell me Exit, what beliefs of yours seperate you from your more
> > liberal countrymen?
>
> We don't use the term liberal in the same perjorative sense as you chaps
do,
> as the 3rd political party in the UK is the Liberal party.

When *I* say liberal it is usually perjorative because so many of their
beliefs are an anathema to me, and as one relegated to being on the losing
end of those beliefs (ie: one capable of obtaining a lifestyle worth
stealing from), a certain resentment builds up. I don't the word is
perjorative on it's own. The beliefs (and moreso the execution of those
beliefs) are abhorent to me, that doesn't mean that if one believes those
things, they should mind being called a Liberal. I am a conservative, and
proud of that fact. I bristle slightly at being called (falsely) a
Republican because that has all the religious baggage that has nothing to do
with what I am. If those ideals were mine though, I'd embrace the label
happily. I think liberals don't like being called liberals in much the same
way a thief hates being labeled a thief.

>
> I am separated from my more socialist countrymen by my beliefs in the free
> market, low taxes and low public spending. Perhaps the difference between
my
> views and the dogma you appear to represent is that I am willing to accept
> any parts of 'socialism' when they are proven to work, such as the NHS.

Oddly I would embrace NHS if it were truly for everyone and not the way it
would be set up here, which is to say on the backs of those that produce.
But to my way of thinking someone has to pay for it. Either everyone equally
(which is essentially a huge forced insurance policy - ie: the healthy pay
for the sick), or it is taxed based (the rich pay for the poor) or is
socialized (the companies forced to produce for way less than market value).
None of these options work for me, however the first option is how we handle
car insurance in my State, and these the lesser of three evils. The best
alternative (personal responsiblity - everyone handling their own bills - is
completely out of favor and seen as grossly unfair to those not personally
responsible)


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:yOgOa.77788$%L.70944@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:5jaOa.77018$%L.1677@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:T73Oa.76196$%L.10957@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >>>>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:Oj1Oa.76183$%L.67657@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am an
> >>>>>>>> Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right wing
> >>>>>>>> party and the republicans are the even more right wing party?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists
> >>>>>>> and the Republicans are the liberals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Democrats are socialists?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx ) you need to
> >>>>>> believe in:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> State ownership of big business.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually that's too much work for them, they just believe in
> >>>>> taxing it into submission.
> >>>>>
> >>>> So no then.
> >>>
> >>> I'd put it down as a sort of. It's not that they don't want it, it's
> >>> just that they screw up each company that they try this one. They
> >>> can't do it out right so it's a lot of smoke and mirrors, regulate
> >>> everything so tightly that it might as well be run by the government
> >>> (ironically: California calls this deregulation). But do they
> >>> believe in it and lust for it, I think so.
> >>>
> >> So they have actually tried a compulsory purchase of a national
> >> industry which then subsequently failed?
> >
> > As I said previously anything antithecal to vast majority of the
> > public is never do straight out in this country. So rather than buy a
> > company outright, they set rigid limits on what it can charge, and
> > set up a billion rules it must comply to. Essentially running the
> > company through legistration rather than by direct hand. So it's not
> > like in a socialist cou ntry, be we were refering to what they
> > believe in and desire.
> >
> Ahhh, I see your definition. In truth nationalisation really involves the
> creation of a state owned monopoly which would mean for example, your govt
> buying every electricity company in the US, lumping them all together and
> calling it American Energy Inc or similar. What you describe seems to be
> simply heavy handed remote control.

I agree that it is mere shadow of what you describe, I offer it nearly as
insight into their wishes and desires, as the actions you describe are
currently still against the law in terms of the power of the government.

> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A command economy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Well?
> >>>
> >>> I skipped this because I'm not sure what this means and I'm too lazy
> >>> to look it up today.
> >>>
> >> Sorry - it's an economy where the govt control the means of
> >> production.
> >
> > Admittedly here, we have only reached the point of the govt limiting
> > and undermining the means of production.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Big time. Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
> >>>>>
> >>>> Hmmm. . . . . .could you elucidate please.
> >>>
> >>> The Top half of all American Wage Earners Pay almost all Income
> >>> taxes. Nope that probably didn't help. Damned IRS moved everything
> >>> around again, I'll have to go with this link:
> >>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html
> >>>
> >> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would be
> >> expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from both
> >> a social and economic perspective.
> >
> > I don't feel like debating that at the moment. But my point was that
> > the Libs are for ever higher rates on the top tax brackets, more
> > people on the bottom paying ever lower amounts of taxes, and more and
> > more social programs for those unable or unwilling to help
> > themselves. So clearly they believe in and are very efficient at
> > redistribution of wealth.
> >
> Out of interest, here low earners pay about 22% income tax and the top
rate
> is 40% even for millionaires - and everyone gets an annual tax free
> allowance of around $8000 before they start paying tax. How does that
> compare with the US tax system currently?

On a Federal level (state and countries add their own income (and other)
taxes which vary enormously from State to State. Alaska actually has a
negative tax rate, several states have no state income tax, and some are
heavily taxed. massachusetts is currently 6% and rising) the Top rate is 37%
(it was a high at 71% under Carter), the bottom rate is 15%, but that really
doesn't tell the picture as 37% pay no tax at all, many are actually given
money (A wonderful wealth redistribution tool called tax credits), and as I
stated before the top 50% pay 96.09% of the taxes. And then several types of
income are taxed completely differently, and some are taxed twice. Our
system is absurdly complex, mostly to keep the lawyers employeed and make
sure everyone feels like a criminal (which makes them easier to control).
One interesting aspect of our revenue system is you can ask 50 different IRS
agents the same question and get upwards of 50 starkly different answers
(this has been done and documented).
But you can see with this kind of a spread on revenue, NHS on a tax basis,
simply is a another aspect of wealth redistribution.

> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
> >>>>>> politcal struggle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Definately.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> State provision of services.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't know how strongly they feel about publicizing everything,
> >>>>> but they show do go ballistic whenever talk of privitizing
> >>>>> something comes up.
> >>>>>
> >>>> So what public services are provided by the democrats that aren't
> >>>> by the republicans?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
> >>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the face!
> >>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, we'll just call em 4/5 socialists then....
> >>>>
> >>>> Not even 5% socialists - must try harder.
> >>>
> >>> Wow, if that's 5% then they must whip most kids straight out of the
> >>> delivery room into a bubblewrap crate designed for safety and
> >>> health, while pushing the few producers to breaking point to keep
> >>> society going. No, too far from one of my concepts of hell.
> >>> What's good side for the non-leeches?
> >>
> >> You seem somewhat dogmatic - a nations success surely must not only
> >> be measured in dollars, but also how it looks after it's less
> >> fortunate citizens and I say this a right wing Conservative.
> >>
> >
> > Where as I believe that a country is only as strong as the intregity
> > of it's people.
> > And intregity I measure by the individuals belief in personal
> > reponsiblity. And that I see (by which I mean I observe it happening
> > in this country) as undermined by the entitlement mindset.
>
> We both believe similar things then, but my belief in my fellow Englishmen
> leads me to trust that their self-respect will allow them only to use
> entitlement as a last resort, whereas you seem to think many Americans
will
> immediately give up trying if they can get the basics for free.

Forty years of experience has shown me that it works that way here.
The more that is given the more they not only want, but they more that they
feel they deserve.
Pick a random person around my parts, and on one hand they are proudly
milking the system for what it's worth and decrying the rich as selfish,
greedy and not paying their fair share. It's both insane and maddening.
Of cpurse it doesn't help that the entitlements here are designed to make
you more dependant. For instance: Unemployment discourages working by making
it largely an all or nothing deal. You can't work a little and build your
way up with slowly reduced benefits, because that would lead too many people
off the roles and not dependant on the government. The system wants to be
milked.


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:zXgOa.77790$%L.30607@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Papa Smurf wrote:
> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:NcaOa.77017$%L.6314@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Papa Smurf wrote:
> >>> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:%93Oa.76197$%L.68601@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:23:42 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> scrape at mindspring dot com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:40:07 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of US political parties as I am an
> >>>>>>>> Englishman - I take it the democrats are the very right wing
> >>>>>>>> party and the republicans are the even more right wing party?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope. You've got it wrong. The Democrats are the socialists
> >>>>>>> and the Republicans are the liberals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Democrats are socialists?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To be a socialist (like Tony Blair or Karl Marx ) you need to
> >>>>>> believe in:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> State ownership of big business.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A command economy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeois is a
> >>>>>> politcal struggle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> State provision of services.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing parties
> >>>>>> neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them in the face!
> >>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps you need to look a bit closer. I'm not familiar with the
> >>>>> phrase "command economy", but everything else you mentioned is
> >>>>> dead on what the Democrats want.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? Which industries have the democrats nationalised recently?
> >>>>
> >>>> If they were socialists a national health service would be top of
> >>>> their list, but they don't ssem to have provided one yet.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We run into a little trouble with that one. Since largely it is US
> >>> companies fronting the bill for the R&D that provides cheapers
> >>> better drugs and procedures for the rest of the world it becomes
> >>> difficult for US to achieve a leechbased healthcare system without
> >>> putting at least some of the cost on the non-producers.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid thats not true. Global Trade Information Services show
> >> that the US exported 8695 and imported 14309 GBP Millions
> >> pharamceuticals in 2002. The UK by comparison exported 10031 and
> >> imported 7446. We don't put the costs on the non-producers, so why
> >> would you need to?
> >
> > I'd be very curious to see how pharameceuticals is defined to make
> > that statistic true.
>
> Same way the US Govt defines it.
>
> > I'd also be curious to know how many of said drugs are we originally
> > developed or knockoffs thereof.
> >
> None are knockoffs, the UK is one of the worlds leading pharmaceutical
> developers, not some 3rd world sweat shop copying US drugs. US Giant
Pfizer
> is the worlds biggest pharmaceutical co. with 7.5% of the world market
> share. GlaxoSmithKline in the UK have 7.0% of the world market and none of
> the other US companies comes close. Bear in mind that 53% of the worlds
> patents are registered to UK individuals or companies and a significant
part
> of that is pharmaceutical.

I was completely unaware of this. BTW: I am very much enjoying our
conversation.
Do you have any links that I could look into this with? Always like to
upgrade the worldview where it is flawed.

> >> Since this is totally
> >>> unacceptable to leechvoters and hugely unpopular with those that
> >>> would end up footing the rest of the bill, it has trouble even being
> >>> formed to come for a vote. Take recent events where Bush has said
> >>> "Get me a healthcare bill, I'll sign it" and then the press starts
> >>> giving out the details that it will (gasp) cost some more than they
> >>> are getting back (they wanted the magical cow to pay for it all),
> >>> suddenly they are all up in arms and it probably won't get passed.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying you should have a national health service, thats a
> >> choice for your electorate, but I do suspect the arguments are not
> >> being fairly assessed.
> >
> > I call them like I see them.
>
> Of course you do, but I suspect political dogma gets in the way of a fair
> assessment of whether a NHS would help or hinder your country.

I've posted my reasons in the other half of this thread. I can only go on,
what my experience shows me, and what observe about similar matters.
If it is shoved down our throats, and it works, I'll be first in line
changing my tune. If, as I suspect, that I end paying not only for my own
medical expressives, but those of several hundred others, maybe it will
finally be time to admit defeat, and look for a freer country.

Papa Smurf wrote:
> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:BFgOa.77785$%L.34555@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Papa Smurf wrote:
>>> "scrape at mindspring dot com" <scrape@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>> message news:77iigv85k0e7qrn2akh1q0jacjrg2cgoh4@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:37:21 GMT, "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what would
>>>>> be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be desirable from
>>>>> both a social and economic perspective.
>>>>
>>>> From another post of yours a little further down:
>>>>
>>>>> I bet you don't - I'm a right wing conservative. (Small & large
>>>>> 'C')
>>>>
>>>> Those two statements don't support each other.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose they could from a socialist viewpoint.
>>> Tell me Exit, what beliefs of yours seperate you from your more
>>> liberal countrymen?
>>
>> We don't use the term liberal in the same perjorative sense as you
>> chaps do, as the 3rd political party in the UK is the Liberal party.
>
> When *I* say liberal it is usually perjorative because so many of
> their beliefs are an anathema to me, and as one relegated to being on
> the losing end of those beliefs (ie: one capable of obtaining a
> lifestyle worth stealing from), a certain resentment builds up. I
> don't the word is perjorative on it's own. The beliefs (and moreso
> the execution of those beliefs) are abhorent to me, that doesn't mean
> that if one believes those things, they should mind being called a
> Liberal. I am a conservative, and proud of that fact. I bristle
> slightly at being called (falsely) a Republican because that has all
> the religious baggage that has nothing to do with what I am. If those
> ideals were mine though, I'd embrace the label happily. I think
> liberals don't like being called liberals in much the same way a
> thief hates being labeled a thief.
>
I see where you are coming from, though of course I am a conservative
Conservative! Didn't realise there was religious baggage with
republicanism, though the concept of a republican state rather than a
constitutional monarchy is repugnant to me! Liberals over here are happy to
be called liberals because it means someone who treads a sensible middle
line and believes in others freedoms and rights.

>>
>> I am separated from my more socialist countrymen by my beliefs in
>> the free market, low taxes and low public spending. Perhaps the
>> difference between my views and the dogma you appear to represent is
>> that I am willing to accept any parts of 'socialism' when they are
>> proven to work, such as the NHS.
>
> Oddly I would embrace NHS if it were truly for everyone and not the
> way it would be set up here, which is to say on the backs of those
> that produce. But to my way of thinking someone has to pay for it.
> Either everyone equally (which is essentially a huge forced insurance
> policy - ie: the healthy pay for the sick), or it is taxed based (the
> rich pay for the poor) or is socialized (the companies forced to
> produce for way less than market value). None of these options work
> for me, however the first option is how we handle car insurance in my
> State, and these the lesser of three evils. The best alternative
> (personal responsiblity - everyone handling their own bills - is
> completely out of favor and seen as grossly unfair to those not
> personally responsible)

Well someone has to pay for private healthcare too - you might pay your HMO
all your life and never get sick. Instead of helping someone who is ill, you
simply line the shareholders pockets. At least with the NHS you get a sense
of doing right by others. The NHS is paid for by National Insurance which is
a small fixed percentage of income that is paid at the same rate by all,
rich or poor. I suspect there is a little more community spirit still left
over here as I and many others don't begrudge paying national insurance when
it means children and the elderly get all the care they need for free.
Setting up an NHS now for the USA would however be rather expensive and need
a large hospital to be built for every town, several for every city and a
clinic for every suburb - might set you back a bit of cash.

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."