Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#2821 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:59 PM

<Mafia-s style money laundry doesn-t need advertising, when Chavez has to protect himself in his defending Venezuelan oil resources. :) >

This is a poster I saw the other day: "Chavez IS the People." Then you realize how important is the people and what's going to happen to them once he becomes the new lion. Would I personally support him if I lived in Venezuela? No way. I'd assume all saints are guilty until proven innocent.

If on the other hand, these ideas were to happen anywhere in the world, I'd go there ASAP...;)
  • 0

#2822 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:13 PM

Donq; *The Lech Walesas and Mahatma Gandhis are the ones who rise above fear and face the lion. *
I don
  • 0

#2823 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:57 PM

Donq

>>>Chavez has to protect himself in his defending Venezuelan oil resources. <<<

I think you answered this quite well. If Chavez had interests for Venezuelans it would be fine. But I think he has interests for
himself.

It is a laugh to here a slogan like,"Chavez is the people". It's typical left-wing propaganda. If he really thought he was the people he would inform them of the actual scene with international vultures. He is being propped up. No one can stand alone against oil interests. It's a sham designed to keep resources in the proper hands.

"Chavez is the people" is a rallying cry to collectivize and concentrate power into this dictators hands.

Although I agree power and violence are different things they are not entirely seperate. Violence is more of a tool of power.

I think what you are stating is that power lies in collective concentration to which each individual contributes. This is true and we have given that power to our representatives - our governments, whom are agents of the international corporate bankers. If we all collectively took back our individual power and did not support our governments or banks they would have no power. The difficulty is that they control the resources and can inflict much suffering upon us. I might add, the time is imminent and they intend this in any case.

The difficulty in effecting change is to minimize adverse effects.
Power means control, whether passive or violent, and it also means responsibility. How many people, who have given power to the State, will feel able enough to take power away so as to control and be responsible for their own lives? Many people are only too willing to relinquish responsibility to the State.

The drive for healthcare in the US is a further concentration of power. Many people unwittingly support it and will lose more control over their lives to the State.

I believe what has to occur is going to occur. The alternative is a gradual dismantling of the power structure over several decades but it requires the realization on everyone's part that they do not have to be dependant on government for their life.
  • 0

#2824 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 09:01 PM

Pliny; *"Chavez is the people" is a rallying cry to collectivize and concentrate power into this dictators hands.*

Pliny; Chavez didn
  • 0

#2825 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 09:47 PM

< Walesa participated in presidential election and received less than 1% of votes. I would only add;>

Amazing, but at one point he was indeed the symbol of resistance against the Russian lion.

< God save us from people who are prized by our enemies.>

I agree with that too.

donq; * do whatever, but do something;*

< Isn-t a sign of devotion to bumblebee?>

I don't know bumblebees, but bees can kill a lion...;)
  • 0

#2826 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 10:02 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Pliny; *"Chavez is the people" is a rallying cry to collectivize and concentrate power into this dictators hands.*

Pliny; Chavez didn-t hide his communistic conviction before election and Venezuelans give him the majority votes . He implements politics he promised Venezuela people before election. I see very seldom that politician keeps his words but Chavez does..


I guess they are aware it is their last vote.

I would keep my word too in order to be elected leader for life.

You must realize Woj, that trickery is the soul of politics and is often called "diplomacy".

Even Donq likes and approves of trickery as evidenced by his story of the lion being led to the well by the rabbit. He must first lie to the lion, like any politician. Of course, intent is what really matters.
  • 0

#2827 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 10:27 PM

"Without at least the passive support of the general population and his/her agents, the most powerful dictator in the world becomes just another crackpot with dreams of world domination."

<Although I agree power and violence are different things they are not entirely seperate. Violence is more of a tool of power.

I think what you are stating is that power lies in collective concentration to which each individual contributes. This is true and we have given that power to our representatives - our governments, whom are agents of the international corporate bankers. If we all collectively took back our individual power and did not support our governments or banks they would have no power. The difficulty is that they control the resources and can inflict much suffering upon us. I might add, the time is imminent and they intend this in any case.>

The lion can only rule with the consent or indifference of the little animals. It's our job to blow the camouflage of the lion. At that point, the little people are on their own.

"All hierarchical systems require the cooperation of people at every level--from the lowliest workers to the highest bureaucrats. When enough people withdraw their support for a long enough time, the power of the ruler disintegrates. The Politics of Nonviolent Action is essentially about how this can be most effectively accomplished. Sharp stresses that strategic nonviolence is not passive, nor is it a way of avoiding conflict. He sees conflict as necessary and inevitable. Strategic nonviolence is a method of actively engaging in resistance through carefully planned campaigns of disobedience and disruption."

http://www.fragments...2/p&srevtx.html

<The difficulty in effecting change is to minimize adverse effects.
Power means control, whether passive or violent, and it also means responsibility. How many people, who have given power to the State, will feel able enough to take power away so as to control and be responsible for their own lives? Many people are only too willing to relinquish responsibility to the State.>

They've been taught to depend on outside sources so they become dependent. They should be taught that the power lies in themselves. They must build their own water well.

<The drive for healthcare in the US is a further concentration of power. Many people unwittingly support it and will lose more control over their lives to the State. >

But Canada's healthcare system is NOT socialized, it's private. It has little bureaucracy and covers everyone, at half the cost of "free enterprise" America, where bureaucracy has a big appetite. Funny, ah?:confused:

<I believe what has to occur is going to occur. The alternative is a gradual dismantling of the power structure over several decades but it requires the realization on everyone's part that they do not have to be dependant on government for their life.>

I think it'll happen within 5 years. Something like the time it took Gorbachev to turn Russia upside down, without mobs or blood. Of course, the revolution was betrayed but we know better.
  • 0

#2828 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 10:45 PM

<Even Donq likes and approves of trickery as evidenced by his story of the lion being led to the well by the rabbit. He must first lie to the lion, like any politician. Of course, intent is what really matters.>

Camouflage and trickery are weapons of predators, and the little animals must learn to use them in self defence. I do not approve of their use though in tricking the lion into something. If we make a deal with the lion, we keep our word. If we say, "You keep your stuff and your royal ways IF you get tamed," he can go about his business and we go about ours without bothering him.

If only he were smart...:confused:
  • 0

#2829 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 11:13 PM

>>>But Canada's healthcare system is NOT socialized, it's private. It has little bureaucracy and covers everyone, at half the cost of "free enterprise" America, where bureaucracy has a big appetite. Funny, ah?<<<

Funny, I thought it was socialized! In what way is it private?
Little bureaucracy....where are you getting this? Covers everyone at half the cost...I don't think so.

Canada's healthcare eats up forty per cent of government's revenues. Private medicine is illegal in Canada. You cannot buy medical treatment here. They are fighting to be able to perform MIR's on a private basis. Any attempt at changing the system is met with resistance from the medical establishment, including government unions, those dependant for their living on the system, e.g. the pharmaceutical companies, die-hard socialists
(of which there are many) the elderly, who paid so dearly into the system, and the infirm, especially those whose families have conveniently abandoned them to the compassionate State.

The bureaucracy in Canada is the government. The bureaucracy in the States is the HMO's. In both countries treatment is at the discretion of the the one paying the bills. In the States you have the option of private treatment as well, sometimes an HMO will share the cost of private treatment.

I do not believe medical care should be designed on the business model in any respect. The American and Canadian system are both inadequate. The Canadian system is especially inadequate towards the profession itself.


Five years is a short time to bring down a centuries old heirarchy.
I think too many people have been made dependant on it and feel they will lose everything if they retract from it.
  • 0

#2830 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 12:57 AM

"It was a vision of cooperation based on the premise that, at heart, a society represents a commitment by those in it to share in a future together. We knew that without our health, we had nothing. With it, we always had a chance. Our medicare system is a concrete expression of that mutual commitment to ensure everybody has a chance in life."

>>>But Canada's healthcare system is NOT socialized, it's private. It has little bureaucracy and covers everyone, at half the cost of "free enterprise" America, where bureaucracy has a big appetite. Funny, ah?<<<

<Funny, I thought it was socialized! In what way is it private?
Little bureaucracy....where are you getting this? Covers everyone at half the cost...I don't think so.>

The hospitals are private as far as I know; people never get to see a bill, which is very good; everybody is covered, which is even better.:)

I don't mean it's perfect but perhaps we in America can learn quite a bit from it...

The U.S. should consider Canada's health care model

James Clancy addresses an American health care conference

Madison, Wisconsin - The United States could eliminate vast health care inequities and save huge amounts of money by adopting a single-payer system similar to one pioneered by Canada, says James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees.

Clancy told a diverse audience of community leaders, social activists, doctors and union leaders there are compelling reasons for the U.S. to consider Canada's public medicare model as an alternative to the costly and unwieldy private model it has now.

*Canada spends about 9.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) to provide universal health care for all citizens, Clancy noted. The U.S. spends 14% and provides no coverage at all for 43 million of its citizens, and inadequate coverage for 100 million Americans*.

U.S. costs rising faster

"Moreover, the U.S. costs are rising while Canada devotes a smaller portion of our GDP to health care today than we did a decade ago," Clancy noted.

"The administrative costs of the U.S. system have been estimated to be about three times Canada-s.... If the U.S. was to adopt Canada-s system, the savings would be so large as to allow America to provide coverage for those 43 million plus citizens."

Clancy said there are two main reasons why the U.S. should consider a single-payer health care system - the first because it's the right thing to do, and the second because it's the smart thing to do. "Canada-s single-payer system speaks volumes about the character of our nation," he said.

"Less than a generation ago, Canadians decided the good of our health was a public responsibility, something we would all share, something we all owed ourselves, something we would all pay for.

"So we set up a system to guarantee that every Canadian would get the best medical care available v no matter who you were, no matter what illness you had, no matter where you lived or worked, and no matter how much money you had in the bank. All that mattered was that you were sick. If you were, you got care.

"It was a vision of cooperation based on the premise that, at heart, a society represents a commitment by those in it to share in a future together. We knew that without our health, we had nothing. With it, we always had a chance. Our medicare system is a concrete expression of that mutual commitment to ensure everybody has a chance in life."

Compelling case

Clancy also said a single-payer system makes compelling economic sense because economies of scale are maximized, risks and rewards are pooled, administrative costs are greatly reduced and it provides the highest level of choice.

"I know there is a popular myth in America that choice of doctors is limited in Canada. But the reality is that in Canada, we-re free to choose whatever doctor we want," he said.

"We also choose which hospital we stay at. We go to the emergency room when we want and need to. We choose who our specialist will be. We pick our treatments too. No 'phantom networks.' No 'physician gag clauses in contracts.' We don-t have to worry about reading the fine print. There-s no 'renewability clause.' No need to 'seek prior authorization from our insurance company.'"

Clancy said a single-payer system also provides many other benefits for society as a whole and the economy in general. The list includes:


  • 0

#2831 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 01:23 AM

>>> James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees.<<<

That says it all. What a pile of lies.

I hope the Americans do a little more in depth research before even considering it.

I'm going to that website and give them what for.
  • 0

#2832 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 01:38 AM

>>> James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees.<<<

<That says it all. What a pile of lies.

I hope the Americans do a little more in depth research before even considering it.

I'm going to that website and give them what for. >

OK, I'm saying we should shop around to cover everyone without incurring in a large bureaucracy. Let's look at this other one...;)

The best Healthcare in the world -- in France???

(snip)

The French system was rated the best in the world by the World Health Organisation when it looked at access to healthcare, efficiency and effectiveness. But it is not the highest spender; that dubious honour goes to America, which puts an astonishing 14 per cent of its GDP into healthcare but still leaves a large section of its population without proper medical cover.

In France, every working person contributes towards healthcare, through the securit? sociale which comes straight out of their pay packet, typically at around 14 per cent of their wages. Different professions also pay into insurance schemes, known as the mutuelle, which is a top-up system resulting in their healthcare being free at the point of delivery. The unemployed, elderly and children receive free care at the state's expense.

This system gives patients enormous bargaining power. They can see the doctor of their choice, whenever they want. They can go to their local GP or refer themselves straight to a specialist. Yet politicians are now looking at ways of curbing health spending, amid concern that the costs could rise and rise if there is no limit to what patients can demand. They want treatments to be based more on evidence of what works, and less on individual whim. Family doctors have far greater rates of prescribing antibiotics than in Britain, for example. Hospitals also have less incentive to encourage staff to work harder to get patients out of bed and back home because there is no pressure on bed availability.

more...

http://wits2020.net/...ves/000207.html
  • 0

#2833 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 01:57 AM

When it comes to healthcare, America is being shortchanged...:(

-France...

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75.9/83.5

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 69.3/74.7

Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 5/4

Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 133/60

Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 2,567

Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 9.6

http://www.who.int/country/fra/en/

-Canada...

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77.2/82.3

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 70.1/74.0

Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 6/5

Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 95/58

Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 2,792

Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 9.5

http://www.who.int/country/can/en/

-America...

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 74.6/79.8

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 67.2/71.3

Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 9/7

Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 140/83

Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 4,887

Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 13.9

http://www.who.int/country/usa/en/

And they don't cover 43 million Americans. Needless to say, the stress of getting sick can't be told in numbers...:confused:
  • 0

#2834 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 03:01 AM

Jim Clancy what an a**!!!

Perfect examples of how Statistics lie.

>>>*Canada spends about 9.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) to provide universal health care for all citizens, Clancy noted. The U.S. spends 14% and provides no coverage at all for 43 million of its citizens, and inadequate coverage for 100 million Americans*.<<<

9.4% of GDP

If you look at Federal Government Statistics only you will see that to be true. If you look at the year '98-99 you will see the expenditure for healthcare at $25.5B. In the year 99'-2000
The expenditure was 12.5B. How did the federal government cut healthcare spending in half?

They didn't they transferred the responsibility to the provinces to make up the shortfall.

All the federal government does is make transfer payments to the provinces to administer their healthcare. Healthcare spending is a provincial responsibility. The provinces had to make up the shortfall somewhere else.

Here's how the federal transfer lines up:

Year 2002-2003 Healthcare: $18.6B Defence: $10.8B
2001-2002 $17.3B $10.0B
2000-2001 $13.5B $9.6B
1999-2000 $12.5B $10.2B
1998-1999 $25.5B $8.7B
1997-1998 $20.5B $8.8B

Your statistic that you provided of 9.5% of GDP is true and can be found in Statistics Canada. It does not represent total healthcare costs.

Also I wonder what percentage of the American costs of healthccare is from Canadians buying services in the US. I'll bet it is not insignificant.

It is so easy to lie with statistics. I am reminded of MarkTwains comment,"There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics."

Jim Clancy again:

>>>"Moreover, the U.S. costs are rising while Canada devotes a smaller portion of our GDP to health care today than we did a decade ago," Clancy noted.<<<

Mr. Clancy is either a moron and has no business addressing anyone from that ca[pacity or he is out to dupe the Americans in which case he is is still not suited for addressing anyone as regards healthcare.
  • 0

#2835 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 03:09 AM

The World health Organization is not about to endorse a private medical system. It will always see statistics that reflect a better light on socialized medicine. There are faults with the American system, that I do not question. As I stated before I do not think medicine should be based on the business model and that is it's main fault globally as well as it's being politicized.
  • 0

#2836 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 04:42 AM

<The World health Organization is not about to endorse a private medical system. It will always see statistics that reflect a better light on socialized medicine. There are faults with the American system, that I do not question. As I stated before I do not think medicine should be based on the business model and that is it's main fault globally as well as it's being politicized.>

What country then you think is the best in healthcare? You say it shouldn't be another business, what then?:confused:
  • 0

#2837 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 06:00 AM

I found out that Mr. Clancy was addresssing the AFL/CIO in Wisconsin. One friendly union to another. Whatever to make themselves greater in number.

We have a left-wing media type here in my town and, like Mr. Clancy, he has a brain for numbers. He can rattle off statistics for anything that happened in the last five years. Somehow they gravitate to them because if you don't have all the story behind the statistics the interpretation of thier meaning can be flawed.

As for healthcare, and a correct model for it's function, take a look at what field it naturally occurred in. The mystical field of the spirit.
The Shaman, Medicine man, they looked after the physical as well as the spiritual aspect of healing.

If we had any understanding of man we would not deny him his spiritual side in the art of healing. Treating the physical aspect of man is a mechanical function. The standard practice of medicine is no longer in the realm of art or the spirit. It is in cold science which does our soul no good.

Governments should not interfere with medicine nor should they tax it. It should have remained in the realm of religion or at least should have evolved along parallel lines. That it went with science is to our detriment. Of course it is logical it would fall under science as long as we have physical things to learn about the body but it should not have relinquished it's roots.

Before the advent of healthcare,or socialized medicine, doctors were paid whatever their patients could afford. They were never lacking and were always respected as pillars in their communities.

If people funded medicine charitably and governments didn't tax medical practitioners or hospitals they would be awash in money. If they ever swayed from providing a valuable service it would not be obligatory to continue contributing. You can bet there would be more attention paid to servicing the customers.

Alternative methodologies would thrive as well if they were efficacious. And real, not money-making, breakthroughs would be
the rule rather than the exception.

That's a basis for a medical model I believe more rational than the business, bottom line model that all healthcare models are based on currently.

By the way, there are no private hospitals in Canada. Homes for the elderly may exist privately, I think, but they are not entirely medical facilities.

No doctor in Canada may accept private payment for his services.
  • 0

#2838 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 07:02 AM

Whats the difference between Walsea and Gorbachev? Neither
saw what they thought they had embarked on, when the ground started moving under their feet they realised how puny they were
when it comes to change.
THats why I dont advocate a revolt involving all sorts of people
who dont really know the real issues. The lion just shows how smart he is.
The other point is that there is an ideological issue here which people tend to overlook. I believe in building from the roots - people up, not from an authoritative top down. Revolutions if
"successful" in taking away power from a lion usually end up setting up another lion at a time when there is no possibility of the people having any say let alone control. Naturally those well placed and who have placed themselves well and those who have the ability to manipulate eg those who financed it, start the top down rule, ie new lion.
Those awake acting like they are awake, eg simple case of handing out pamphetes and getting a good response, helps others to wake up changing their disposition and enterprise.
This ?s grass roots up and they are in control of their enterprise.
When people invest in their own they look after it and protect it.

Given to people who dont appreciate they loose it- easy come easy go, thats why dictatorships oppress making people hang on to what has been given for the lives.

The quote from a site discussing power and violence is a little
astray. It said power was psychological. True, but only one of the many forms. Violence wasnt power, well its the application of
it and said violence rarely creates power. Well one of the objectives is psychological control and if power is psychological
then violence creates power.
I agree when it said violence simply increases state power, which I previously said and why dont support confrontation. Although the word confrontation could be interpreted in more ways than one like power and violence.

A gree with the principle that Pliny makes regarding the criteria of state funded social-cooperative public services, although some would be more liberal than other as to how many there should/could be. In a democracy thats for the people to decide.

Heres a subtle form of power:

Leo Tolstoy- All newspaper and journalistic activity is an intellectual brothel from which there is no retreat.
from a letter to Prince V, 1871
  • 0

#2839 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 07:10 AM

<As for healthcare, and a correct model for it's function, take a look at what field it naturally occurred in. The mystical field of the spirit.
The Shaman, Medicine man, they looked after the physical as well as the spiritual aspect of healing.>

This spiritual approach is certainly missing in Western medicine, but other factors weigh in even more on good health: PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, DIET, EXERCISE...

Having such an universal plan--socialized or not--can certainly help our health and our budget.;)

"Americans do not want socialized medicine," is a phrase that is frequently used glibly to dismiss the single payer concept. Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the facilities, and the providers of care are government employees. In sharp contrast, a single payer system uses the existing private and public sector health care delivery system, preserving private ownership and employment. The unique feature of a single payer system is that all health care risks are placed in a universal risk pool, covering everyone. The pool is funded in a fair and equitable manner such that everyone pays their fair share, unlike our current defective system in which some pay far too much, and others are not paying their share.

The funds are allocated through a publicly administered program resulting in optimum use of our health care dollars. A single payer system has no more in common with socialized medicine than does our Medicare program.

(snip)

Other than the assurance that everyone would have coverage for health care, there is even a greater good that single payer would bring to our nation. Making available to everyone *preventive and public health services would significantly improve the level of health of our entire nation*. Reduction of communicable diseases and reducing the higher costs of untreated chronic disease helps all of us. Healthy individuals make for a healthier work force, with less lost time at work, greater productivity, and a more positive work environment.

http://www.rickhubba...ForEveryone.htm
  • 0

#2840 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 07:47 AM

<Whats the difference between Walsea and Gorbachev? Neither
saw what they thought they had embarked on, when the ground started moving under their feet they realised how puny they were
when it comes to change.
THats why I dont advocate a revolt involving all sorts of people
who dont really know the real issues. The lion just shows how smart he is.>

Howdy Bader
There's no revolt; there's no people ignorant of the issues. They are getting the plan to the water well, and they are encouraged to build something, not to destroy something. Walesa and Gorbachev campaigned against something without clear knowledge of the lion to come. Or maybe they did, who knows.;)

The point is jungle stories is the cry of the monkey to alert the others of the camouflaged lion. We got to pass the good word.

Pamphlets and Internet are a good way to start.;)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru