| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
27 Feb 2005 07:36:02 AM |
| Object: |
SoftPower, Hard Choices |
SoftPower, Hard Choices
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037845/site/newsweek/
China is emerging as a major economic power, but will that translate
into a military threat? Taiwan will be the test.
By Melinda Liu and John Barry
Newsweek
March 7 issue - Ask a party bureaucrat in Beijing about China's foreign
ambitions these days, and the reply may sound like a beauty
contestant's doe-eyed promise to work for world harmony. "Peaceful
resolution of global problems is both our aim and our style," asserts
one official involved in international affairs. China has no interest
in becoming a military superpower, he insists. "A power, yes, but not a
superpower," he says. "We don't want to be enemies with anyone."
Taiwan
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/84c9e453e27664d6
China
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d3294ecc38a6a57d
Is the wakening giant a monster?
http://tinyurl.com/iws6
A Blueprint for the Future
http://snipurl.com/a684
.
|
|
| User: "Komin" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 03:08:39 AM |
|
|
Lot of cheap talks here about Tibet.
If the west is so good , send western military battalions and
divisions into Tibet and free the Tibetans from the ChiCom s.
Talk is so cheap .
Why don ' t American military invades Tibet ?
To give the Tibetans their own democracy ?
All westerners can do about Tibet is cheap talks .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
03 Mar 2005 12:01:29 PM |
|
|
So China can do what we did, then wait 100 years, then they can have
Tibet soctt free, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
04 Mar 2005 01:58:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:01:29 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
So China can do what we did, then wait 100 years, then they can have
Tibet soctt free, right?
If you are asking, "Do you believer that after the passage of "sufficient
time", it is more destructive to reverse crimes than to leave them
uncompensated?" The answer is "Yes".
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 06:10:47 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:01:29 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
So China can do what we did, then wait 100 years, then they can
have
Tibet soctt free, right?
If you are asking, "Do you believer that after the passage of
"sufficient
time", it is more destructive to reverse crimes than to leave them
uncompensated?" The answer is "Yes".
Great, China have right to hang on to Tibet then. It's already 50
years, and already more destructive to reverse China's crime than to
leave them uncompensated. Problem solved huh, just like our own Native
American problem.
If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like this, why
can't the Chinese? I would say wrong is wrong no matter who's doing it
while recognize demanding China to reliniquish her established
sovereignty is equally destructive as demanding US to reliniquish our
established sovereignty. I guess both case should be left uncompensated
according to your reason.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 06:28:48 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110111047.795554.53790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:01:29 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
So China can do what we did, then wait 100 years, then they can
have Tibet soctt free, right?
If you are asking, "Do you believer that after the passage of
"sufficient
time", it is more destructive to reverse crimes than to leave them
uncompensated?" The answer is "Yes".
Great, China have right to hang on to Tibet then. It's already 50
years, and already more destructive to reverse China's crime than to
leave them uncompensated. Problem solved huh, just like our own Native
American problem.
If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like this, why
can't the Chinese? I would say wrong is wrong no matter who's doing it
while recognize demanding China to reliniquish her established
sovereignty is equally destructive as demanding US to reliniquish our
established sovereignty. I guess both case should be left
uncompensated according to your reason.
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by US
actions apply for compensation.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Any Native American personally directly harmed by US government? Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 12:19:27 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
....
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Why don't we ask them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native American personally directly harmed by US government? Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 05:24:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Why don't we ask them?
How about all those who were ripped of by a deeply incompetent US
Bureau of Indian affairs? T o begin with. Or those who have the US
still refusing to live up to old treaties.
Notthat any xian right wingers care our government lies and cheats.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native American personally directly harmed by US government? Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 11:24:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:24:07 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Notthat any xian right wingers care our government lies and cheats.
Yeah, I think technically Maine belongs to an indian tribe. That
doesn't mean we are going to let them have it, now, does it?
==============================
Our greatest Americans were not Christian! Our flag has never flown a crucifix!
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -Benjamin Franklin
"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." -Thomas Jefferson
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." -James Madison
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." -Ethan Allen
"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?..." Thomas Paine
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" -Passed unanimously, US Senate, 1797
"Religion is bunk" -Thomas Alva Edison
EVIGILARE PECUA!
http://unrealitycheck.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native American personally directly harmed by US government? Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 05:53:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:19:27 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Why don't we ask them?
Any reason you didn't do so? Are you unable to speak to them by yourself?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native American personally directly harmed by US government? Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 11:25:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:53:15 +0800, Jim Walsh
<jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote:
Any reason you didn't do so? Are you unable to speak to them by yourself?
Well, maybe he would have to drive twelve hours to find one because of
the GENOCIDE OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS BY THE US GOVERNMENT.
==============================
Our greatest Americans were not Christian! Our flag has never flown a crucifix!
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -Benjamin Franklin
"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." -Thomas Jefferson
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." -James Madison
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." -Ethan Allen
"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?..." Thomas Paine
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" -Passed unanimously, US Senate, 1797
"Religion is bunk" -Thomas Alva Edison
EVIGILARE PECUA!
http://unrealitycheck.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
07 Mar 2005 12:20:30 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
....
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Why don't we ask them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike P" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 12:51:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Why don't we ask them?
Some time back a young man came to our reservation. Wanting to know
about the wrongs done to the people, and what it was like being one of
them. I told him why not try living with us for a while to find out for
yourself. He did for two months, and after having rocks thrown at him.
Not being able to shop/eat where he wanted, and being stopped by every
police officer that happened to see him he threw up his hands. Asking
how can you live with this mind set others have for you, and other NDNs?
I told him it was easy. Those that believe this way, and act this way
are no longer human. These non-humans will do anything, and believe
anything as long as they feel they are better than anyone else. It's
also a easy way to blame others for their stupidity. He looked at me,
and said I know understand what it's like being Indian. Smiling I looked
at him, and said you only have a taste. You will always be able to be
White where I can't.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
07 Mar 2005 11:56:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Why don't we ask them?
Toxic waste dumps, for one. They correspond with Indian
reservations pretty well. Clinton had started building
aqueducts to Pine Ridge, so that we'd have some decent
water, but Bush canceled that.
A lot of Indians who were sterilized by the IHS (Indian
Health Services) are still alive; this went on all the way
to the early 90s.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 01:04:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Toxic waste dumps, for one. They correspond with Indian
reservations pretty well.
Specific example: piles of radioactive "tailings" all over the Navajo
reservation, left behind by (among others) Kerr-Magee after they mined
out all the uranium. How does the U.S. government figure in? Well, it
sure as hell hasn't made any of the mining companies clean up the mess,
and that makes them (us, since I'm a U.S. citizen) directly
responsible.
These piles were left uncovered and unfenced. Every time the wind
blows across them, radioactive particles are carried off, to be
breathed in by residents of the res. Being unfenced, Navajo children
frequently play on them - hey, what little kid doesn't like a big pile
of sand to play in?
The cancer rates on the Navajo res are sky-high.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 01:09:29 PM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
Toxic waste dumps, for one. They correspond with Indian
reservations pretty well.
Specific example: piles of radioactive "tailings" all over the
Navajo
reservation, left behind by (among others) Kerr-Magee after they
mined
out all the uranium. How does the U.S. government figure in? Well,
it
sure as hell hasn't made any of the mining companies clean up the
mess,
and that makes them (us, since I'm a U.S. citizen) directly
responsible.
These piles were left uncovered and unfenced. Every time the wind
blows across them, radioactive particles are carried off, to be
breathed in by residents of the res. Being unfenced, Navajo children
frequently play on them - hey, what little kid doesn't like a big
pile
of sand to play in?
True. And the BIA's the ones managing such matters. Between
chaos theory and quantum mechanics, life expectancy for
Navajo kids is a matter of probability.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 01:13:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
True. And the BIA's the ones managing such matters.
Hey, ain't they the ones who "lost" 6 billion dollars of Native
American money?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
15 Mar 2005 02:29:26 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in
news:1110568409.598547.46750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
Brenda, I LOVE that sig file!
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQjOCgT/rA6+b3AyhAQF/oAf+OC/90JF/lyMamSmWSbtdsfclMNFer/Nt
ZYvlzi6fN33b+1GC8dmXB9y9POBVzF3T6tdq75Bj7lfuH6XsVATTzOcqjLmZhEV6
NttaV7DWxnJ7mHuCXfRvG9bhk89TJ6edDtdDvlwHzckc4vRDOL0fmvzTMdSVPguj
tNWLtqbdohhxDdHdraW3d3roukDupM9h2eXVCw50ylvYiZOTJIj1VqVzr5ZwhmNp
acaGSIWKrYaDW5NeWVxvD3wo/2g5j34lyV6iU6B2xq/gf86SniJimy+2rdrX3X0L
+BQtI8+TVYhazEIeauxNlNjSh49lPLoXidxUWTni23ZcxzQIxbt+3Q==
=+cEm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Floyd L. Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by USgovernment? |
07 Mar 2005 01:37:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote:
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Why don't we ask them?
Toxic waste dumps, for one. They correspond with Indian
reservations pretty well. Clinton had started building
aqueducts to Pine Ridge, so that we'd have some decent
water, but Bush canceled that.
A lot of Indians who were sterilized by the IHS (Indian
Health Services) are still alive; this went on all the way
to the early 90s.
To put is simply, there is no Native American alive today who
has not been harmed by the US government in direct proportion to
the amount of Native culture they live, compared to whatever
degree of non-Native culture they live.
In other words, only if they are "white like me", is there no
problem.
I should point out that I am in fact White. And that virtually
nobody else in my immediate family is, nor are most of my
friends and neighbors. Indeed, because the place that I choose
to live has such a high proportion of Native American people
compared to non-Natives, the US Government paints us *all* with
the same broad stroke and many Whites here, including me, suffer
to some degree simply because the majority are Native.
Don't think so??? Here's an example! Health care.
In 1969 hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil was found
on land owned by the Inupiat Eskimo people who are my neighbors.
In 1972 that land was "purchased" by the US government. I say
"purchased", because the government decided so, and didn't ask
anyone if they wanted to sell. Whatever, the price they paid
was essentially 1 billion dollars and free health care forever.
Sounds nice, until you work out the figures. Even if the
government followed up as promised, it was highway robbery.
But they *are not* following up as promised. The Native health
care system in Alaska is being funded at 50% of need today. It
happens that said 1/2 funded system is the *only* system
available to anyone here, Native or otherwise. Hence, even
though I pay for the services I get, the fact that it is only
funded at 50% means I just simply *cannot get* adequate health
care *because* of the fact that I choose to live in an area
where the population is more than 90% Native.
That ill treatment is 100% extended to my wife, her family, to
my children and to my grandchildren.
You think I'm pissed about it, you be right!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karl S" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
09 Mar 2005 10:11:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:37:24 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
But they *are not* following up as promised. The Native health
care system in Alaska is being funded at 50% of need today. It
happens that said 1/2 funded system is the *only* system
available to anyone here, Native or otherwise. Hence, even
though I pay for the services I get, the fact that it is only
funded at 50% means I just simply *cannot get* adequate health
care *because* of the fact that I choose to live in an area
where the population is more than 90% Native.
What a bunch of baloney. The amount of money spent on Alaska Native
health care is so high it's obscene.
Here in Bethel alone, in western Alaska, the hospital, which serves
probably 11000 Natives, has an annual budget of 132 million
dollars!!!!!
That's $12000 per person per year.
If what ails you can't be handled by Bethel's hospital, you are flown
to the BIG hospital in Anchorage, which, a few years ago, already had
an annual budget exceeding 400 million dollars. It's probably a lot
more now.
Only the very wealthy can afford this kind of health care in the lower
48.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Komin" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
10 Mar 2005 05:02:41 AM |
|
|
Buzz
you are right about this
All Tibetans are Chinese inside China ,
I totally agree with your statement .
Tibetans are Chinese ,
just like the Hui group of people inside
,they are Hui Chinese [ Muslems ] .
Manchu are Machurian Chinese ,
they are all c,
Hong Kong chinese ,
Macau chinese ,
Taiwan Chinese ,
Inner Mongolian Chinese ,
Yunnan Chinese ,
they are all Chinese .
so why other nations want to split them up ?
Even the US is unwilling to split them up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Floyd L. Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by USgovernment? |
10 Mar 2005 06:32:11 AM |
|
|
Karl S <karlsch@-s-p-a-m-ak.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:37:24 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
But they *are not* following up as promised. The Native health
care system in Alaska is being funded at 50% of need today. It
happens that said 1/2 funded system is the *only* system
available to anyone here, Native or otherwise. Hence, even
though I pay for the services I get, the fact that it is only
funded at 50% means I just simply *cannot get* adequate health
care *because* of the fact that I choose to live in an area
where the population is more than 90% Native.
What a bunch of baloney. The amount of money spent on Alaska Native
health care is so high it's obscene.
In *your* mind, but then from the sound of your words, we could
probably expect *anything* spent for Alaska Natives would be too
much in your opinion.
Regardless, your figures are wrong.
Here in Bethel alone, in western Alaska, the hospital, which serves
probably 11000 Natives, has an annual budget of 132 million
dollars!!!!!
Actually, it does *not* have a budget that high.
I don't know off hand what it is today, but 1) I know it isn't
that high, and 2) I *can* find out. Your number is almost
certainly 2003 budget for all of YKHC, not the hospital in
Bethel. Do you even understand the difference?
If you want to look at some old numbers, here is a report that
can be found online:
http://www.ykhc.org/library/ykhc-annual-report-02.pdf
It is for the year 2002, and YKHC is significantly larger now
than it was then, due to taking on the administration of several
health care facilities, which are not part of what IHS is
responsible for, in the region during 2004.
That report shows something like a $110 million budget for all
of YKHC, of which the hospital might be the largest single
entity, but is most certainly nothing close to all of what YKHC
is.
That's $12000 per person per year.
Actually, the number of people it serves is more than twice your
numbers.
http://www.hospitalsoup.com/rn/asp/cid.239/pt/hospitaldetailsmain.asp
That URL says 22,000 and others say 24,000.
Given the extent of the services provided, $6000 a year is
hardly excessive! In addition to several facilities in Bethel
other than the hospital (such as a prematernal care facility, a
senior center, and I'm not sure what all else), YKHC operates 47
village clinics and 3 regional clinics in the Y-K Delta. Not
all of the YKHC budget is Federal funding for the health care
that IHS is responsible for, hence your statement that the
budget divided by the number of Natives is absolutely incorrect
even when the right numbers are plugged in. For example, YKHC
provides medicare and medicaid services, YKHC runs a private
health service (Bethel Community Services, Inc.), and YKHC
engages in other activities mandated and/or funded by State or
Federal governments.
If what ails you can't be handled by Bethel's hospital, you are flown
to the BIG hospital in Anchorage, which, a few years ago, already had
an annual budget exceeding 400 million dollars. It's probably a lot
more now.
Again, you are talking not about the hospital in Anchorage, but
the entire IHS health care delivery system based in
Anchorage... which of course serves the entire state as well as
the Anchorage region. And we can probably assume that, like YKHC,
the IHS portion of their budget is not 100% of their budget.
Only the very wealthy can afford this kind of health care in the lower
48.
Comparing costs in Bethel with the Lower-48 is ridiculous, but
the fact is you are wrong. Look up the budget for Providence
Hospital or even Fairbanks Memorial Hospital in Fairbanks! Or
better yet, look up the cost of health care for the entire State
of Oregon, and compare that to the YKHC budget. They cover
about the same area, and Oregon certainly has lower costs.
As I said, IHS is funded at 50% of need. That is what the
Federal government says. I don't have access to documentation
from which I can provide quotes, but you'll find that each year
the various Alaska Native health care organizations engage in
joint negotiations, under the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, with
the IHS for funding of Native health care. I'd guess that a web
search looking for information about that might clue you in, at
least a little.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
10 Mar 2005 02:34:47 PM |
|
|
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Here in Bethel alone, in western Alaska, the hospital, which serves
probably 11000 Natives, has an annual budget of 132 million
dollars!!!!!
Actually, it does *not* have a budget that high.
Karl is an activist, ergo the numbers will be inflated.
I don't know off hand what it is today, but 1) I know it isn't
that high, and 2) I *can* find out. Your number is almost
certainly 2003 budget for all of YKHC, not the hospital in
Bethel. Do you even understand the difference?
Sadly, he thinks all the hospitals in Alaska serve Eskimos.
The problem is, government services to "undesirables",
including Eskimos, tend to be useless. I'm sure you've heard
that song "911 is a Joke"?
As I said, IHS is funded at 50% of need. That is what the
Federal government says. I don't have access to documentation
from which I can provide quotes, but you'll find that each year
the various Alaska Native health care organizations engage in
joint negotiations, under the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, with
the IHS for funding of Native health care. I'd guess that a web
search looking for information about that might clue you in, at
least a little.
In fact, a lot of times, IHS ends up using Indians as guinea
pigs (with a healthy bribe^W contribution from Big
Pharmaceuticals). Such was the case with Norplant and
Depo-Provera.
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Floyd L. Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by USgovernment? |
10 Mar 2005 03:34:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Here in Bethel alone, in western Alaska, the hospital, which serves
probably 11000 Natives, has an annual budget of 132 million
dollars!!!!!
Actually, it does *not* have a budget that high.
Karl is an activist, ergo the numbers will be inflated.
I had a different word...
I don't know off hand what it is today, but 1) I know it isn't
that high, and 2) I *can* find out. Your number is almost
certainly 2003 budget for all of YKHC, not the hospital in
Bethel. Do you even understand the difference?
Sadly, he thinks all the hospitals in Alaska serve Eskimos.
The problem is, government services to "undesirables",
including Eskimos, tend to be useless. I'm sure you've heard
that song "911 is a Joke"?
Given what I've seen him post in the past, the *is* exactly
what he thinks.
As I said, IHS is funded at 50% of need. That is what the
Federal government says. I don't have access to documentation
from which I can provide quotes, but you'll find that each year
the various Alaska Native health care organizations engage in
joint negotiations, under the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, with
the IHS for funding of Native health care. I'd guess that a web
search looking for information about that might clue you in, at
least a little.
In fact, a lot of times, IHS ends up using Indians as guinea
pigs (with a healthy bribe^W contribution from Big
Pharmaceuticals). Such was the case with Norplant and
Depo-Provera.
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
Canada seems to have a very suitable model.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 12:52:11 PM |
|
|
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Actually, it does *not* have a budget that high.
Karl is an activist, ergo the numbers will be inflated.
I had a different word...
LOL
I don't know off hand what it is today, but 1) I know it isn't
that high, and 2) I *can* find out. Your number is almost
certainly 2003 budget for all of YKHC, not the hospital in
Bethel. Do you even understand the difference?
Sadly, he thinks all the hospitals in Alaska serve Eskimos.
The problem is, government services to "undesirables",
including Eskimos, tend to be useless. I'm sure you've heard
that song "911 is a Joke"?
Given what I've seen him post in the past, the *is* exactly
what he thinks.
And 911 is a joke, both the number, and, thanks to Bush, the
date.
As I said, IHS is funded at 50% of need. That is what the
Federal government says. I don't have access to documentation
from which I can provide quotes, but you'll find that each year
the various Alaska Native health care organizations engage in
joint negotiations, under the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, with
the IHS for funding of Native health care. I'd guess that a web
search looking for information about that might clue you in, at
least a little.
In fact, a lot of times, IHS ends up using Indians as guinea
pigs (with a healthy bribe^W contribution from Big
Pharmaceuticals). Such was the case with Norplant and
Depo-Provera.
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
Canada seems to have a very suitable model.
Hell, ANY country has a more suitable model than the U.S.
I think these neocon numbers on how expensive universal
health care would be so expensive assume that the government
would pay for liposuction and silicone injections.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 12:52:11 PM |
|
|
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Actually, it does *not* have a budget that high.
Karl is an activist, ergo the numbers will be inflated.
I had a different word...
LOL
I don't know off hand what it is today, but 1) I know it isn't
that high, and 2) I *can* find out. Your number is almost
certainly 2003 budget for all of YKHC, not the hospital in
Bethel. Do you even understand the difference?
Sadly, he thinks all the hospitals in Alaska serve Eskimos.
The problem is, government services to "undesirables",
including Eskimos, tend to be useless. I'm sure you've heard
that song "911 is a Joke"?
Given what I've seen him post in the past, the *is* exactly
what he thinks.
And 911 is a joke, both the number, and, thanks to Bush, the
date.
As I said, IHS is funded at 50% of need. That is what the
Federal government says. I don't have access to documentation
from which I can provide quotes, but you'll find that each year
the various Alaska Native health care organizations engage in
joint negotiations, under the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, with
the IHS for funding of Native health care. I'd guess that a web
search looking for information about that might clue you in, at
least a little.
In fact, a lot of times, IHS ends up using Indians as guinea
pigs (with a healthy bribe^W contribution from Big
Pharmaceuticals). Such was the case with Norplant and
Depo-Provera.
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
Canada seems to have a very suitable model.
Hell, ANY country has a more suitable model than the U.S.
I think these neocon numbers on how expensive universal
health care would be so expensive assume that the government
would pay for liposuction and silicone injections.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
10 Mar 2005 08:28:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In fact, a lot of times, IHS ends up using Indians as guinea
pigs (with a healthy bribe^W contribution from Big
Pharmaceuticals). Such was the case with Norplant and
Depo-Provera.
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
But that would make a lot of folks as healthy as the well-healed (sic).
What would be the point of being rich, then? This sort of thing could
undermine the American way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Floyd L. Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by USgovernment? |
10 Mar 2005 08:54:26 PM |
|
|
"Erik A. Mattila" <eam@nospamimpix.com> wrote:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
In fact, a lot of times, IHS ends up using Indians as guinea
pigs (with a healthy bribe^W contribution from Big
Pharmaceuticals). Such was the case with Norplant and
Depo-Provera.
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
But that would make a lot of folks as healthy as the well-healed
(sic). What would be the point of being rich, then? This sort of
thing could undermine the American way.
And, if those folks were fucking *INDIANS*! Can you imagine
rich people not being any better off than *INDIANS*?
Ohhhh, the horror of it all...
(I sure am glad not to be that "rich".)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 01:01:10 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Erik A. Mattila" <eam@nospamimpix.com> wrote in
news:O_idnT8cN-1nn6zfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
But that would make a lot of folks as healthy as the
well-healed (sic). What would be the point of being rich,
then? This sort of thing could undermine the American way.
You *do* realize that a key Repulblican strategist (I forget
his name) said back in 1993 that Clinton's proposed health
care plan (which was just a rework of what *Nixon* had once
proposed, not any Canadian style program, mind you) had to
be fought by Republicans at all costs, for if the American
people ever got comprehensive national health care insurance,
they'd like it so much that there'd be no turning back. It
would become just like <gasp> Social Security.
How's that for logic? "We must oppose this measure because
everyone will like it if it passes". Similarly, that's the
rationale for the current attack on Social Security--it's
not in any great danger of going broke, the projections that
it is are all based on extremely conservative estimates of
annual economic growth (2%) over the next 75 years, whereas
the historical average as been 3 %, and with historical
growth the projections show no problems. The reason why the
Republicans are trying to attack Social Security is that
they believe it to be the linchpin of the hated welfare
state, i.e. in the words of a Cato Institute spokesman
destroy Social Security and dismantling the rest is easy.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQjDfgT/rA6+b3AyhAQFDIAf/VXqUhtXgq3YPZ5jKO7kg8OxvI3tBsbmr
/xt4ei3uv6YgTpfvh0HKB5QIbhnErtIdWJDvmENlU41zfCN0H7jG21Pg07vcaBcL
7Ps+Q0y7NQXG9Y9V4J5h3Tg3gy1XE0Ph61C9YT0yhAnQhCRSF5RcNXEW8qXrH+Xf
kTkKYbDGKLJrB1clCXU2XoVa5DDmY78PnXc2Iaqf8cq/8ZGxrlfgMCKgV1eQQxZe
sreRIMd2dC5B0RnNC39eehTENdcAAeM9bosdRRWqwbo21WS0tOUh+lgDY5/+0N3B
pwkEZjwi1BrY/mmiCIUBdAC5oOiKVe399EDI6dixw3jmA3vr1C/1dw==
=pyod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erik A. Mattila" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 06:29:01 PM |
|
|
Secret Squirrel wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Erik A. Mattila" <eam@nospamimpix.com> wrote in
news:O_idnT8cN-1nn6zfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
Actually, prison inmates have better health insurance than
Indians, but no one wants to talk about that.
If any right-wingers here want to make things right, BTW,
the proper answer is to just socialize medical insurance.
But that would make a lot of folks as healthy as the
well-healed (sic). What would be the point of being rich,
then? This sort of thing could undermine the American way.
You *do* realize that a key Repulblican strategist (I forget
his name) said back in 1993 that Clinton's proposed health
care plan (which was just a rework of what *Nixon* had once
proposed, not any Canadian style program, mind you) had to
be fought by Republicans at all costs, for if the American
people ever got comprehensive national health care insurance,
they'd like it so much that there'd be no turning back. It
would become just like <gasp> Social Security.
How's that for logic? "We must oppose this measure because
everyone will like it if it passes". Similarly, that's the
rationale for the current attack on Social Security--it's
not in any great danger of going broke, the projections that
it is are all based on extremely conservative estimates of
annual economic growth (2%) over the next 75 years, whereas
the historical average as been 3 %, and with historical
growth the projections show no problems. The reason why the
Republicans are trying to attack Social Security is that
they believe it to be the linchpin of the hated welfare
state, i.e. in the words of a Cato Institute spokesman
destroy Social Security and dismantling the rest is easy.
Secret Squirrel
Could be the reason, I suppose, but what about the less complex reason
of just steering a lot of cash to Wall Street? I read one account of
the historical record of stock performance, and it showed that there was
real reason to believe that many retirees will come up short half the
time, which will mean that the government would have to dip into its
treasures to compensate, costing the country much more than SS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQjDfgT/rA6+b3AyhAQFDIAf/VXqUhtXgq3YPZ5jKO7kg8OxvI3tBsbmr
/xt4ei3uv6YgTpfvh0HKB5QIbhnErtIdWJDvmENlU41zfCN0H7jG21Pg07vcaBcL
7Ps+Q0y7NQXG9Y9V4J5h3Tg3gy1XE0Ph61C9YT0yhAnQhCRSF5RcNXEW8qXrH+Xf
kTkKYbDGKLJrB1clCXU2XoVa5DDmY78PnXc2Iaqf8cq/8ZGxrlfgMCKgV1eQQxZe
sreRIMd2dC5B0RnNC39eehTENdcAAeM9bosdRRWqwbo21WS0tOUh+lgDY5/+0N3B
pwkEZjwi1BrY/mmiCIUBdAC5oOiKVe399EDI6dixw3jmA3vr1C/1dw==
=pyod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
14 Mar 2005 12:14:28 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Erik A. Mattila" <eam@nospamimpix.com> wrote in
news:8_CdnQPCg4z2pa_fRVn-2g@adelphia.com:
Secret Squirrel wrote:
How's that for logic? "We must oppose this measure because
everyone will like it if it passes". Similarly, that's the
rationale for the current attack on Social Security--it's
not in any great danger of going broke, the projections
that it is are all based on extremely conservative
estimates of annual economic growth (2%) over the next 75
years, whereas the historical average as been 3 %, and
with historical growth the projections show no problems.
The reason why the Republicans are trying to attack Social
Security is that they believe it to be the linchpin of the
hated welfare state, i.e. in the words of a Cato Institute
spokesman destroy Social Security and dismantling the rest
is easy.
Could be the reason, I suppose, but what about the less
complex reason of just steering a lot of cash to Wall
Street?
Oh, yes, sure, but they're intertwined. The Repubs think that
Social Security (getting a check from the government) fosters
"dependence mentality" and causes people to identify with
others who dependent on the government for income (i.e., the
poor) whereas putting the money into Wall Street fosters an
"investment mentality" which causes people to identify with
other investors (i.e., the wealthy). It's not without some
merit, although Wall Street itself isn't above clamoring for
guv'mint interference to prop up sagging businesses--although
as we all know, Repubs considers *that* kind of welfare "good".
I read one account of the historical record of
stock performance, and it showed that there was real reason
to believe that many retirees will come up short half the
time, which will mean that the government would have to dip
into its treasures to compensate, costing the country much
more than SS.
Absolutely. I've already seen it, with company pension funds.
I know people who retired in the late 90s, and rather than
take the pension plan offered by their company, with its modest
monthly stipend, they took the option of getting the entire
value of that plan as a lump sum, with the expectation--backed
by the advice of financial "experts"--that they could, even
with quite conservative investments, get more of a return
than what the monthly company check would pay. Then the market
tanked, and they were in severe financial straits. Instead of
enjoying their retirement as planned, many of them were forced
to go back to work--at Walmart, selling real estate, or
whatnot--to make ends meet.
And these were well-educated professional types. What happens
when the less well-educated poor get the marketing of sleazy
shucksters? Not to mention that during any prolonged period
of financial woes, for a decade or more, that the "going back
to work" option to make ends meet disappears. One simply can't
continue working forever to make up any shortfall in one's
retirement income, that's one of the truths about getting old.
This could therefore work out to a very ugly scenario where
many if not most seniors are forced to work every last hour
that they can, and then get fleeced for their savings and for
what they had hoped to leave their children once they collapse
due to ill health and can work no more-again, because of no
national health insurance plan.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQjTUAT/rA6+b3AyhAQFeIwf9Fh/y6pst6IpkMRUXHBT8ZiQOxZR4N9vl
PyajLlA1PY2X73Wm5ZUQfUj3DbmHN5D2V/8xXcxZ5rYu3ffUtOOJtu9/MbL+dY8e
tNYd9dMLERe4RPSFU4LdDmNVFxeZ6pwVHx6DBKgzOyC8VOgzz1CZPCbSJDMMvM61
3++kSK8dLktp5P6OVRm9MStWsONBcRaFLeQwWnoBOf7qXYwOynm70+mqB7B69lUt
jZ5o78RMdp99FyvYxDjvcJmjyIjAcFcOA9COg35AhVdQ6ZWG9/jAsT8kAUkLac/A
l2/t/orpU0vk20UnZj7VeKga+T507rJGlJV+TFxlUWXIFwrzaqUIEg==
=W9nb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
