Religions > Atheism > Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kurt Nicklas" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2007 05:40:13 AM |
| Object: |
Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
On Sep 24, 1:40 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> allegedly said innews:1190647564.302935.289230@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 24, 9:11 am, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> allegedly said
innews:1190631305.245581.79590@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
"Single-Payer" Health Care Is Anything but Free
By Paul Hsieh
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 24, 2007
WOW !!!!
Wow, indeed. You didn't bother trying to refute one single point in
the article, Half-n-half.
Refute what ???
Citeless anecdotes fron looney reichtard "think" tanks ???
Half-n-half, I know you consider hysterical babbling to be a
reasonable substitute for thought but maybe
you could refute, as a starter, the following points made in the
article:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high
taxes. (As a percentage of GDP, total taxation is 28 percent higher
in
Canada than in the United States.) The government, rather than
individuals, then decides how that money is spent."
Just what do you disagree with in the above paragraph and why?
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 09:20:32 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money is
already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax money,
roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month for
health insurance.
Anybody?
Anybody?
Come on, don't be shy!
Weird, it's almost like nobody's getting health insurance that cheap or
something...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 03:47:37 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money is
already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax money,
roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month for
health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 05:43:10 PM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money is
already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax money,
roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month for
health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for pays
most of it (which costs you in salary).
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 08:12:54 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money is
already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax money,
roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month for
health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for pays
most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate future, I
will be using the VA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 08:36:44 PM |
|
|
Still waiting for an explanation of why no major party in Canada is
calling for privatization of the system.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 08:29:57 PM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:POqdndnGivOOL2TbnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high
taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend
around $8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax
money is already spent on public health care systems. Take all that
tax money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per
person per year more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be
eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for
health insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month
for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for pays
most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate
future, I will be using the VA.
"I believe government cannot provide affordable health care"
George Bush, July 23, 2007. The patients in VA hospitals will
doubtless be surprised to learn that their health care is
no longer affordable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Savageduck" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 08:47:07 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high
taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend
around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money is
already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax money,
roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month for
health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for pays
most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate
future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision plan.
My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00, leaving my
monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79. Then there are
still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or assets
in excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in need can
drop below the income threshold and get the medical treatment they need
paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 08:51:57 PM |
|
|
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen is
forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of high
taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend
around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money is
already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax money,
roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per person per
year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for
health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month for
health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for pays
most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate
future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision plan.
My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00, leaving my
monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79. Then there are
still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or assets in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in need can
drop below the income threshold and get the medical treatment they need
paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the system, rather
than to let the government muck it up even more?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 09:09:24 PM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen
is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of
high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend
around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money
is already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax
money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per
person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for
health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month
for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for pays
most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate
future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision
plan. My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00, leaving
my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79. Then there
are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or assets
in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in need
can drop below the income threshold and get the medical treatment they
need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 09:17:26 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each citizen
is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the form of
high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend
around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax money
is already spent on public health care systems. Take all that tax
money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need about $300 per
person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for
health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a month
for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for pays
most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate
future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision
plan. My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00, leaving
my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79. Then there
are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or assets
in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in need
can drop below the income threshold and get the medical treatment they
need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the private sector.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: #Single-Payer: A look inside Canada's broken health care system |
25 Sep 2007 10:35:01 PM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:p_SdnTlkgPOuXGTbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each
citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the
form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend
around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax
money is already spent on public health care systems. Take all
that tax money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need about
$300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for
health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a
month for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for
pays most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate
future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision
plan. My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00,
leaving my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79.
Then there are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without
coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or assets
in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in need
can drop below the income threshold and get the medical treatment
they need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the
private sector.
So you are proud of the security procedures that
were in place on 9/11?
Amazing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
25 Sep 2007 10:53:02 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:p_SdnTlkgPOuXGTbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each
citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in the
form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we spend
around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax
money is already spent on public health care systems. Take all
that tax money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need about
$300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person for
health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a
month for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for
pays most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the immediate
future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision
plan. My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00,
leaving my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79.
Then there are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without
coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or assets
in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in need
can drop below the income threshold and get the medical treatment
they need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the
private sector.
So you are proud of the security procedures that
were in place on 9/11?
Please explain what the security people did on 911 that was in violation of the
policies at the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
25 Sep 2007 11:03:43 PM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:vM6dnUasX6EHSmTbnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:p_SdnTlkgPOuXGTbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each
citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in
the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we
spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax
money is already spent on public health care systems. Take all
that tax money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need about
$300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person
for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a
month for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for
pays most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the
immediate future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision
plan. My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00,
leaving my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79.
Then there are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without
coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or
assets in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in
need can drop below the income threshold and get the medical
treatment they need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the
private sector.
So you are proud of the security procedures that
were in place on 9/11?
Please explain what the security people did on 911 that was in violation
of the policies at the time.
Just answer the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
25 Sep 2007 11:21:46 PM |
|
|
Ron Paul floated this idea. I emailed his campaign asking if he felt
that the Capitol Police should be privatized. To their credit they
replied and said they did not feel that way. Unfortunately the person
sending the message seemed to think that airports are private entities.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
25 Sep 2007 11:12:36 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:vM6dnUasX6EHSmTbnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:p_SdnTlkgPOuXGTbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each
citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in
the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we
spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax
money is already spent on public health care systems. Take all
that tax money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need about
$300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person
for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a
month for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work for
pays most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the
immediate future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have a
monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a vision
plan. My employer, The State of California contributes $780.00,
leaving my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself at $227.79.
Then there are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without
coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or
assets in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in
need can drop below the income threshold and get the medical
treatment they need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the
private sector.
So you are proud of the security procedures that
were in place on 9/11?
Please explain what the security people did on 911 that was in violation
of the policies at the time.
Just answer the question.
Before I answer your question, I would like to know what procedures you take
issue with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
26 Sep 2007 07:18:33 AM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:5OydndD5qP6tQWTbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:vM6dnUasX6EHSmTbnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:p_SdnTlkgPOuXGTbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each
citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in
the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we
spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax
money is already spent on public health care systems. Take
all that tax money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need
about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be
eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person
for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a
month for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work
for pays most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the
immediate future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have
a monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a
vision plan. My employer, The State of California contributes
$780.00, leaving my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself
at $227.79. Then there are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without
coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or
assets in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in
need can drop below the income threshold and get the medical
treatment they need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the
private sector.
So you are proud of the security procedures that
were in place on 9/11?
Please explain what the security people did on 911 that was in
violation of the policies at the time.
Just answer the question.
Before I answer your question, I would like to know what procedures you
take issue with.
Another equivocation. Sigh.
OK, defend the practice of private airport security
firms hiring convicted criminals. Then defend private
security firms not screening airline personel or those
wearing airline uniforms. Then defend the sloppy training
private security firms did.
THEN answer the question about whether you are proud
of job private security firms were doing on 9/11.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
26 Sep 2007 07:50:14 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:5OydndD5qP6tQWTbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:vM6dnUasX6EHSmTbnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:p_SdnTlkgPOuXGTbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each
citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care in
the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we
spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our tax
money is already spent on public health care systems. Take
all that tax money, roll it into single payer, and we'd need
about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be
eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per person
for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25 a
month for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work
for pays most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the
immediate future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I have
a monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19 for a
vision plan. My employer, The State of California contributes
$780.00, leaving my monthly coverage bill for my wife and myself
at $227.79. Then there are still deductibles and copays.
I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks here without
coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or
assets in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage, usually
$1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in
need can drop below the income threshold and get the medical
treatment they need paid for by the State. Family values indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix the
system, rather than to let the government muck it up even more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the
private sector.
So you are proud of the security procedures that
were in place on 9/11?
Please explain what the security people did on 911 that was in
violation of the policies at the time.
Just answer the question.
Before I answer your question, I would like to know what procedures you
take issue with.
Another equivocation. Sigh.
OK, defend the practice of private airport security
firms hiring convicted criminals. Then defend private
security firms not screening airline personel or those
wearing airline uniforms. Then defend the sloppy training
private security firms did.
THEN answer the question about whether you are proud
of job private security firms were doing on 9/11.
To my knowledge, all applicable security guidelines were followed on 911, since
I am human, I do make mistakes, thus I have asked you to tell me what the
security people did, or did not do, on 911 that was in violation of policy at
the time.
While you are at it, consider this, is the TSA doing a better job than the
private firms they replaced?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
26 Sep 2007 08:10:49 AM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:jbGdnVTOPIkfyGfbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:5OydndD5qP6tQWTbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:vM6dnUasX6EHSmTbnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:p_SdnTlkgPOuXGTbnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RJGdneC8ha6nJmTbnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@comcast.com:
Savageduck wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:47 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net>
wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:40:13 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
"First, it is ludicrous to think the system is free. Each
citizen is forced to pay for his neighbors' medical care
in the form of high taxes.
Health Canada spends about $4,100 per person. In the US, we
spend around
$8,000 per person. Some $3,800 per person per year of our
tax money is already spent on public health care systems.
Take all that tax money, roll it into single payer, and
we'd need about $300 per person per year
more. Of course, health insurance premiums would be
eliminated.
Source?
So, everybody here who pays less than $25 a month per
person for health
insurance, would pay more under single payer.
Let's have a show of hands of people who pay less than $25
a month for health insurance.
Anybody?
I do.
Your entire payment is 24$ a month? Or the company you work
for pays most of it (which costs you in salary).
I cheat, at the moment, I have no health insurance. In the
immediate future, I will be using the VA.
Right now for a Blue Cross Preferred Provider Group Plan, I
have a monthly premium of $901.34 + $97.26 for dental + 9.19
for a vision plan. My employer, The State of California
contributes $780.00, leaving my monthly coverage bill for my
wife and myself at $227.79. Then there are still deductibles
and copays. I am fortunate, I see so many middle income folks
here without coverage
for themselves or their children. They usually have income or
assets in
excess of the State defined limits for MediCal coverage,
usually $1300/mnth.
Families in dire medical straights are separating so the one in
need can drop below the income threshold and get the medical
treatment they need paid for by the State. Family values
indeed!
Has it occurred to you that a better solution would be to fix
the system, rather than to let the government muck it up even
more?
Actually, government is the solution when the private
sector drops the ball. Or would you prefer airport security
to be handled by private companies the way it was on 9/11?
I absolutely would prefer that airport security be returned to the
private sector.
So you are proud of the security procedures that
were in place on 9/11?
Please explain what the security people did on 911 that was in
violation of the policies at the time.
Just answer the question.
Before I answer your question, I would like to know what procedures
you take issue with.
Another equivocation. Sigh.
OK, defend the practice of private airport security
firms hiring convicted criminals. Then defend private
security firms not screening airline personel or those
wearing airline uniforms. Then defend the sloppy training
private security firms did.
THEN answer the question about whether you are proud
of job private security firms were doing on 9/11.
To my knowledge, all applicable security guidelines were followed on
911, since I am human, I do make mistakes, thus I have asked you to tell
me what the security people did, or did not do, on 911 that was in
violation of policy at the time.
"Airport security for the two flights out of Newark and Washington
Dulles had been provided by Argenbright Holdings Ltd, a company which
had pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in May 2000 because they
had hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including several dozens
with criminal records, at Philadelphia International Airport. The
company, which was on probation at the time of the attack, had its
probation extended to October 2005."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_Sept
ember_11,_2001_attacks
Go on, Hartung. Defend the private security firm that
was using convicted criminals and untrained personel on 9/11.
THEN answer the question - are you PROUD of the job
private airport security firms were doing on 9/11?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
26 Sep 2007 09:31:50 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
To my knowledge, all applicable security guidelines were followed on
911, since I am human, I do make mistakes, thus I have asked you to tell
me what the security people did, or did not do, on 911 that was in
violation of policy at the time.
"Airport security for the two flights out of Newark and Washington
Dulles had been provided by Argenbright Holdings Ltd, a company which
had pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in May 2000 because they
had hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including several dozens
with criminal records, at Philadelphia International Airport. The
company, which was on probation at the time of the attack, had its
probation extended to October 2005."
yet you cannot show that the security people did not do their jobs as the, then
current, policies required.
As I recall, the 911 hijackings were the first hijackings of any flight
originating from a United States airport, in at least thirty years. It seems
that we were doing something right.
Go on, Hartung. Defend the private security firm that
was using convicted criminals and untrained personel on 9/11.
You have yet to show that there is anything to defend. Show me where they were
not doing their jobs.
THEN answer the question - are you PROUD of the job
private airport security firms were doing on 9/11?
The question is irrelevant, at least until you can show that the firms in
question were not doing their jobs.
Please list, in detail, the policies, or regulations the security people
violated which allowed the hijackings to take place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
26 Sep 2007 07:05:31 PM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:kvadnWjJbY7O8GfbnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
To my knowledge, all applicable security guidelines were followed on
911, since I am human, I do make mistakes, thus I have asked you to
tell me what the security people did, or did not do, on 911 that was
in violation of policy at the time.
"Airport security for the two flights out of Newark and Washington
Dulles had been provided by Argenbright Holdings Ltd, a company which
had pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in May 2000 because they
had hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including several dozens
with criminal records, at Philadelphia International Airport. The
company, which was on probation at the time of the attack, had its
probation extended to October 2005."
yet you cannot show that the security people did not do their jobs as
the, then current, policies required.
As I recall, the 911 hijackings were the first hijackings of any flight
originating from a United States airport, in at least thirty years. It
seems that we were doing something right.
More proof you don't know what you are talking about.
Sept. 13, 1980. A Delta Air Lines from New Orleans, bound for
Atlanta, is hijacked. The pilot flew to Havana, the hijackers
were removed from the plane and the flight, with 81 passengers,
continued to Atlanta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings
7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near
San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his
invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol
and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir
had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37
other passengers were killed.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm
Go on, Hartung. Defend the private security firm that
was using convicted criminals and untrained personel on 9/11.
<crickets>
You have yet to show that there is anything to defend. Show me where
they were not doing their jobs.
THEN answer the question - are you PROUD of the job
private airport security firms were doing on 9/11?
The question is irrelevant, at least until you can show that the firms
in question were not doing their jobs.
Never mind. You aren't going to answer the
question, so there is no point in asking any more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
26 Sep 2007 07:38:52 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:kvadnWjJbY7O8GfbnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
To my knowledge, all applicable security guidelines were followed on
911, since I am human, I do make mistakes, thus I have asked you to
tell me what the security people did, or did not do, on 911 that was
in violation of policy at the time.
"Airport security for the two flights out of Newark and Washington
Dulles had been provided by Argenbright Holdings Ltd, a company which
had pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in May 2000 because they
had hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including several dozens
with criminal records, at Philadelphia International Airport. The
company, which was on probation at the time of the attack, had its
probation extended to October 2005."
yet you cannot show that the security people did not do their jobs as
the, then current, policies required.
As I recall, the 911 hijackings were the first hijackings of any flight
originating from a United States airport, in at least thirty years. It
seems that we were doing something right.
More proof you don't know what you are talking about.
Sept. 13, 1980. A Delta Air Lines from New Orleans, bound for
Atlanta, is hijacked. The pilot flew to Havana, the hijackers
were removed from the plane and the flight, with 81 passengers,
continued to Atlanta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings
7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near
San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his
invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol
and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir
had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37
other passengers were killed.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm
I stand corrected.
Go on, Hartung. Defend the private security firm that
was using convicted criminals and untrained personel on 9/11.
<crickets>
You have yet to show that there is anything to defend. Show me where
they were not doing their jobs.
THEN answer the question - are you PROUD of the job
private airport security firms were doing on 9/11?
The question is irrelevant, at least until you can show that the firms
in question were not doing their jobs.
Never mind. You aren't going to answer the
question, so there is no point in asking any more.
When are you going to answer my questions?
You have been dodging the most important question. You have not shown where any
airport security personnel, on 911, violated any standing policies, and that
these violations led to the hijackings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
27 Sep 2007 08:15:44 PM |
|
|
On Sep 26, 8:38 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:kvadnWjJbY7O8GfbnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote in
To my knowledge, all applicable security guidelines were followed on
911, since I am human, I do make mistakes, thus I have asked you to
tell me what the security people did, or did not do, on 911 that was
in violation of policy at the time.
"Airport security for the two flights out of Newark and Washington
Dulles had been provided by Argenbright Holdings Ltd, a company which
had pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in May 2000 because they
had hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including several dozens
with criminal records, at Philadelphia International Airport. The
company, which was on probation at the time of the attack, had its
probation extended to October 2005."
yet you cannot show that the security people did not do their jobs as
the, then current, policies required.
As I recall, the 911 hijackings were the first hijackings of any flight
originating from a United States airport, in at least thirty years. It
seems that we were doing something right.
More proof you don't know what you are talking about.
Sept. 13, 1980. A Delta Air Lines from New Orleans, bound for
Atlanta, is hijacked. The pilot flew to Havana, the hijackers
were removed from the plane and the flight, with 81 passengers,
continued to Atlanta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings
7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near
San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his
invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol
and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir
had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37
other passengers were killed.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm
I stand corrected.
Go on, Hartung. Defend the private security firm that
was using convicted criminals and untrained personel on 9/11.
<crickets>
You have yet to show that there is anything to defend. Show me where
they were not doing their jobs.
THEN answer the question - are you PROUD of the job
private airport security firms were doing on 9/11?
The question is irrelevant, at least until you can show that the firms
in question were not doing their jobs.
Never mind. You aren't going to answer the
question, so there is no point in asking any more.
When are you going to answer my questions?
You have been dodging the most important question. You have not shown where any
airport security personnel, on 911, violated any standing policies, and that
these violations led to the hijackings
David, Mitchel NEVER answers questions. He's too afraid of where that
might lead.
--------------------------------------------
"Reagan said communism was dead. Ergo, there are no
more communist countries."
--------------- Mtchell Hoolman, Jun 4, 2007
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
27 Sep 2007 09:06:02 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1190942144.313588.251740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 26, 8:38 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:kvadnWjJbY7O8GfbnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart...@quixnet.net> wrote in
To my knowledge, all applicable security guidelines were followed
on 911, since I am human, I do make mistakes, thus I have asked
you to tell me what the security people did, or did not do, on 911
that was in violation of policy at the time.
"Airport security for the two flights out of Newark and Washington
Dulles had been provided by Argenbright Holdings Ltd, a company
which had pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in May 2000
because they had hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including
several dozens with criminal records, at Philadelphia International
Airport. The company, which was on probation at the time of the
attack, had its probation extended to October 2005."
yet you cannot show that the security people did not do their jobs
as the, then current, policies required.
As I recall, the 911 hijackings were the first hijackings of any
flight originating from a United States airport, in at least thirty
years. It seems that we were doing something right.
More proof you don't know what you are talking about.
Sept. 13, 1980. A Delta Air Lines from New Orleans, bound for
Atlanta, is hijacked. The pilot flew to Havana, the hijackers
were removed from the plane and the flight, with 81 passengers,
continued to Atlanta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings
7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near
San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his
invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol
and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir
had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37
other passengers were killed.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm
I stand corrected.
Go on, Hartung. Defend the private security firm that
was using convicted criminals and untrained personel on 9/11.
<crickets>
You have yet to show that there is anything to defend. Show me where
they were not doing their jobs.
THEN answer the question - are you PROUD of the job
private airport security firms were doing on 9/11?
The question is irrelevant, at least until you can show that the
firms in question were not doing their jobs.
Never mind. You aren't going to answer the
question, so there is no point in asking any more.
When are you going to answer my questions?
You have been dodging the most important question. You have not shown
where any airport security personnel, on 911, violated any standing
policies, and that these violations led to the hijackings
David, Mitchel NEVER answers questions. He's too afraid of where that
might lead.
You mean answer the questions that prove you wrong?
"ALL global warming advocates are funded by the government-
university complex."
Kurt Nicklass, 06/18/07.
Facts one, Nicklass zero.
Corporate America warms to fight against global warming
USA TODAY
6/5/2006
WASHINGTON — Corporate leaders don't normally invite the federal
government to raise their taxes. But that's exactly what Paul
Anderson is doing. Anderson, the chairman of Charlotte-based Duke
Energy, wants the federal government to fight global warming by
taxing companies based on the "greenhouse gases" they pump into
the atmosphere — just the sort of big-government remedy the Bush
administration says would hobble the economy.
For his efforts, Anderson has been excoriated by conservative talk
radio host Rush Limbaugh and threatened with an "exorcism" by an
industry peer.
But Anderson, 61, is no closet left-winger. He's a registered
Republican, Bush backer and member of the president's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology. That such a Big Business
stalwart is demanding federal action on climate change illustrates
an unmistakable evolution in corporate thinking, motivated both
by evidence that global warming already is affecting the economy
and by the prospect of fat profits from new environment-friendly
products.
"If we approach this rationally, it will not be disruptive to the
economy and will not turn the world upside down and will, at the
same time, address the problem," says Anderson.
Corporate America, which once regarded cries of "global warming"
about as favorably as The Communist Manifesto, increasingly is
embracing the need for reducing human contributions to the planet's
rising temperatures. Forty companies — including Boeing, IBM, John
Hancock and Whirlpool — have publicly endorsed the notion that
climate change is real by joining a business council organized by
the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Institutional investors are demanding that companies disclose
their financial exposure to future climate changes. Insurers are
abandoning underwriting in coastal areas threatened by costly
Hurricane Katrina clones, and companies such as General Electric
and DuPont are gearing up to prosper from the transition to a
carbon-constrained world. Last year, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry
Paulson, now Treasury secretary-designate, warned that the time
needed to address climate change was running out.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-05-31-business-
globalwarming_x.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Morgan \MAMS" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
27 Sep 2007 11:38:49 PM |
|
|
"Mitchell Holman" <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns99B8D6A7A12DAta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1190942144.313588.251740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
"ALL global warming advocates are funded by the government-
university complex."
Kurt Nicklass, 06/18/07.
Oh my... you PDB....
Facts one, Nicklass zero.
You betcha'...........
Climate Change: Bush Regime at Odds with the World
MADRE, An International Women's Human Rights Organization
http://www.madre.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Sep 27, 2007
Contact: Diana Duarte, Media Coordinator
(212) 627-0444; email:
Bush Agenda on Climate Change at Odds with International Push
New York--While dozens of heads of state convened at the United Nations
(UN) in New York this week for a forum to address the threat of climate
change and the need for a global reduction in emissions, President Bush
did not attend these discussions. Instead, today the US will begin a
two-day parallel conference, setting forth the Bush administration's
approach in a meeting of sixteen nations. MADRE, an international
women's human rights organization, today highlighted the need for
worldwide partnership to tackle climate change and condemned President
Bush's lack of engagement.
Political mobilization at the UN has intensified, in preparation for a
climate conference to be held in Bali, Indonesia in December. This
gathering is set to forge commitments for reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases to pre-1990 levels. While the Kyoto Protocol expires
in 2012, the US has refused to sign on and continues to oppose
international limits on emissions, citing a risk to the US economy.
Vivian Stromberg, Executive Director of MADRE, said today, "In a time
when the focus of governments around the world must be on working
together to counter the dangers of climate change, Bush has, time and
again, chosen unilateralism over cooperation. Meanwhile, reports from
the UN warn that soaring temperatures are likely to lead to rising seas
and droughts. These dramatic changes threaten the lives of millions of
people across the planet, and women -- who are responsible for food
production and maintaining natural resources in much of the
world -- will bear the brunt. This is the time for urgent action to
halt this trend and for the Bush administration and the US Congress to
require US industries to curb emissions."
President Bush's proposals center on allowing industries to regulate
themselves and on promoting "clean" energy, including "biofuels."
However, MADRE cautions that the promises of these "biofuels" are a
false remedy and are more likely to perpetuate the injustices of land
rights violations against Indigenous and local people, increase global
hunger and destroy biodiversity. More information can be found in the
MADRE statement "Feed People, Not Cars: Agrofuels are no Solution to
Climate Change," located here:
http://madre.org/articles/int/agrofuels.html.
MADRE emphasizes that the damages of climate change will be felt most
severely among those least at fault and at the greatest risk. The
organization further stresses the centrality of Indigenous Peoples,
particularly women, in this discussion, whose input is often ignored by
governments but whose knowledge is essential to preserve local
biodiversity and food security.
*
MADRE is an international women's human rights organization that works
in partnership with community-based women's organizations worldwide to
address issues of health and reproductive rights, economic development,
education, and other human rights. MADRE provides resources, training,
and support to enable our sister organizations to meet concrete needs
in their communities while working to shift the balance of power to
promote long-term development and social justice. Since we began in
1983, MADRE has delivered over 22 million dollars worth of support to
community-based women's organizations in Latin America, the Caribbean,
the Middle East, Africa, Asia, the Balkans, and the United States.
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
01 Oct 2007 05:32:28 AM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 12:38 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm>
wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns99B8D6A7A12DAta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1190942144.313588.251740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
"ALL global warming advocates are funded by the government-
university complex."
Kurt Nicklass, 06/18/07.
Oh my... you PDB....
You're not worth addressing directly, you shambling moron.
See my reply on this to Hollowman. Go away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Morgan \MAMS" |
|
| Title: Re: Airport Security, better in private hands! |
27 Sep 2007 11:44:16 PM |
|
|
"Mitchell Holman" <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns99B8D6A7A12DAta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
Kurt Nicklas <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:1190942144.313588.251740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
"ALL global warming advocates are funded by the government-
university complex."
Kurt Nicklass, 06/18/07.
Oh my... you Poor Dumb B....
Facts one, Nicklass zero.
You betcha'...........
__________________
< Citations inserted as deemed necessary >
__________________
WEATHER OF MASS DESTRUCTION:
Last month, the Military Advisory Board, a panel of esteemed retired
military officers, issued a report that found "projected climate change
poses a serious threat to America's national security" over the next 30
to 40 years. The report -- "National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change" -- warned that there will be wars over water, increased hunger,
instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels, and global
warming-induced refugees.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417092232.htm
< the content of this cite is posted below in it's entirety>
CBS http://wjz.com/topstories/topstories_story_107074013.html
"The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide
and the growth of terrorism," the report predicted. In an interview with
The Progress Report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that
"if the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence
poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection
and resentment against the prosperous world.
That's an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism."
Raising the ire of the right wing, the House Intelligence Committee took
needed action to set aside funds in order to study the adverse impact
that climate change may have on global security.
NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS ISSUE WARNING ABOUT WARMING:
Leading environmental scientists predict that climate change will bring about
reduced access to fresh water, impaired food production, more diseases,
land loss and displacement of major populations. "While the developed
world will be far better equipped to deal with the effects of climate change,
some of the poorest regions may be affected most. This gap can potentially
provide an avenue for extremist ideologies and create conditions for terrorism."
<citation federal government> US Natural Resources Management and Environment Department
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5183E/w5183e0b.htm
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5183E/w5183e00.HTM <main FAO introduction>
The military experts said the fallout from global warming -- massive migrations,
increased border tensions, greater demands for rescue and evacuation efforts,
and conflicts over essential resources, including food and water -- could lead
to direct U.S. military involvement. Ret. General Gordon Sullivan said, "We
found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact
American military operations around the world." A "ferocious drought and
famine" were the driving forces behind the crisis in Darfur, which is "likely to
be seen as the first climate change war."
<citation> The First Climate Change War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,2067637,00.html
http://wjz.com/topstories/topstories_story_107074013.html Security Risk
CONGRESS RESPONDS TO THE THREAT:
On the heels of the warnings from national security experts, the House
Intelligence Committee last week voted to include a provision in the
Intelligence Authorization bill that would set aside funds to study the impact
of global warming on national security. "We're concerned that global warming
might impact our ability to maintain national security," said House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX). "For that reason, intelligence
analysts are already reviewing the impact of climate change to our nation's
security.
Our bill requires that the review be a formal National Intelligence Estimate
and that the estimate be provided to Congress." Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI)
and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced a bill in March that would also propose
similar action. The Military Advisory Board specifically recommended that
the national security consequences of climate change be fully integrated into
national defense strategies, and "the intelligence community should incorporate
climate consequences into its National Intelligence Estimate."
Because conservatives have blocked action on global warming, notes Center
for American Progress Senior Fellow Joseph Romm, "Progressives are driven
to fund a serious effort by our intelligence agencies to understand the dangerous
implications of our do-nothing climate policy."
<citation> NPR.org "Climate Change and Security PDF
http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=268195566&url_num=41&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fdocuments%2F2007%2Fapr%2Fsecurity_climate.pdf
DENIAL TAKES NEW FORM:
Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy,
said, "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and
instability, or climate change and terrorism." Zinni underestimated the r
esistance to global warming science by the right wing. Rep. Peter Hoekstra
(R-MI), the ranking member on the intelligence committee, claimed, "There's
no value added by the intelligence community" in assessing global warming's
security impact. Hoekstra has previously said he's "not convinced" that we
need to make "radical changes solely to address the issue of global warming."
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-16-05.asp Military Panel
A statement from the House Republican Policy Committee said there is a
real question "about whether global warming is a legitimate intelligence priority."
The Pentagon disagrees. In 2003, it issued a report stating in clear language,
"Because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate
change...should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national
security concern."
Abrupt Climate Change
http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=268195566&url_num=48&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grist.org%2Fpdf%2FAbruptClimateChange2003.pdf
MITIGATING THE EFFECTS:
The Military Advisory Board wrote, "Managing the security impacts of
climate change requires two approaches: mitigating the effects we can
control and adapting to those we cannot." Last week, the IPCC issued its
third working group report urging immediate action to control climate change.
According to the findings, "we have, at most, eight years to freeze and reverse
emissions." Pachauri explained to The Progress Report, "We have to tell the
people of the U.S. that this is something intimately connected with their present
and their future. The cost of inaction is going to be far higher than action. And
the cost of action is really not all that high." The technology "is available to make
immediate change and in others, the capability is expected to develop within
decades. Such is the case with advanced carbon capture and storage technology.
When it comes to energy efficiency and conservation, it could simply be a matter
of policies that give incentive to change." A recent Center for American Progress
poll found that Americans urgently want solutions to curb global warming.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/emissions.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll.html
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
SCIENCE DAILY and The Military Advisory Council on Climate Change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417092232.htm
Climate Change Poses Serious Threat To U.S. National Security
Science Daily — Global climate change presents a serious national security
threat that could affect Americans at home, impact U.S. military operations
and heighten global tensions, according to a study released today by a
blue-ribbon panel of retired admirals and generals.
The study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” explores
ways projected climate change is a “threat multiplier” in already fragile regions
of the world, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states—the breeding
grounds for extremism and terrorism.
The CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, brought
together eleven retired four-star and three-star admirals and generals to provide
advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change on national
security. CNA writers and researchers compiled the report under the board's
direction and review.
The Military Advisory Board members come from all branches of the armed
services. The board includes a former Army chief of staff, commanders-in-chiefs
of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA administrator,
and experts in planning, logistics, underwater operations and oceanography. One
member also served as U.S. ambassador to China.
“Climate change is a national security issue,” retired General. Gordon R. Sullivan,
chairman of the Military Advisory Board and former Army chief of staff, said in
releasing the report at a Washington news conference. “We found that climate
instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military
operations around the world.”
“People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science
projections,” he said. “But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent
certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is
going to happen on the battlefield.”
Military Advisory Board members said they remain optimistic that climate
change challenges can be managed to reduce future risks. The first step
recommended in the study is for the national intelligence community to
include comprehensive assessments of climate change in future security
plans, just as agencies now take into account traditional but uncertain threats.
As part of its five specific recommendations for action, the Military Advisory
Board stated that “the path to mitigating the worst security consequences of
climate change involves reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”
“There is a relationship between carbon emissions and our national security,”
General Sullivan said recently. “I think that the evidence is there that would
suggest that we have to start paying attention.”
“Carbon emissions are clearly part of the problem,” he added.
“We will pay for this one way or another,” stated retired Marine Corps General
Anthony C. Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. “We
will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an
economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms.
And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.”
Retired Navy Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, a shuttle astronaut and former
NASA administrator, said in the report that “unlike the challenges that we are
used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they
will, and they will be grinding and inexorable.” Truly also notes that “maybe
more challenging is that climate change will affect every nation, and all
simultaneously. This is why we need to study this issue now, so that we'll
be prepared and not overwhelmed by the required scope of our response
when the time comes”
Environmental Threats Have Security Implications
The report recognizes that unabated climate change could bring an increased
frequency of extreme storms, additional drought and flooding, rising sea levels,
melting glaciers and the rapid spread of life-threatening disease. While these
projected effects are usually viewed as environmental challenges, the Military
Advisory Board has looked at them from the perspective of national security
assessments and has identified them as serious risk factors for:
massive migrations
increased border tensions
greater demands for rescue and evacuation efforts
conflicts over essential resources—including food and water
Such developments could lead to direct U.S. military involvement, the board found.
“Climate change can provide the c | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
