--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Stardate 20030622.1901, Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > I also neglected to mention factors such as the large number of gun > deaths > > > and the lack of universal medicare.
> >Criminals are much less likely to commit crimes if they know that a large > >portion of the population is packing. > > If that is true, then why is the crime rate in the US so high? If your > statement is correct, the crime rate in the US should be significantly > lower than it is now, given the number of fire arms in private hands. > What is your basis for comparison? Where do you get the information that crime in the US is higher than elsewhere? It isn't ans in fact where we have conceled carry laws it is even lower. Besides, being so restricted that you have no freedom is just as much a crime. > >If Universal medical care is so greate, then why do tens of thousands of > >people from all over the world (including Europe) come to the US to get > >medical care? > > First, not all countries have universal medical care. Second, getting > medical care abroad is sometimes necessary because of waiting lists for > medical procedures. So if we had UMC we would have waiting lists? No thanks. > Third, some people really could take their place in > line but don't want to wait and thus find help elsewhere -- even though > it's quite possible that their Health Insurance will then not pay for it. Or the care they receve in the US is of a higher quality. Check statistics of cancer survival. > And fourth, some treatments are still so new (or even still experimental) > that you can only get that treatment in only one place. And they are being discovered becouse we don't have socialized medicin. Take that away and it would all slow down like it has in the European nations with socialized medicin. > For example, > depending of the number of side effects that kick in, spina bifida in a > foetus is either fatal or results in a severely handicapped child. Now, it > seems that somewhere in the US some medical team has developed surgical > techniques to repair this by operating on the foetus while keeping it in > the womb. As they are the only ones who have that knowledge, people will > have to go the US for that specific treatment (and probably pay for it > themselves, because their Health Insurance probably doesn't cover it). > > > >BTW if anyone, no matter how unable to pay, walks into a "general" > >hospital for medial service they will not be turned down. have you seen > >statistics on what country has the longest lives and the best health? > > Longer lives and best health depend on the *quality* of the health care, > not on whether or not you have universal health care. And *quality* is exactly why we do not. Our "walk in" health care is done by the same doctors as the paying customer. > > > And what about Kyoto? > > > >Don't get me started. Here is an "treaty" that says everyone but the US > >can produce just about as much greenouse gas as they please, but the US > >has to take a ~very~ significant hit to their economy, that sounds to me > >like some kind of economic war wrapped in the guise of a environemntal > treaty. > > IIRC, every country would actually have to take measures to cut down on > emissions of greenhouse gases; the US would have to cut down more because > it pollutes more. No. that is not the case. It provides more volume, but not more per capita. Most "emergin economies" have a much higher polutant rate per capita. And these contries are not required to reduce anything at all in Kyoto. The US could drop to 0 and it would have very little overal effect. > Why on earth would the rest of the world want to launch an economic war > against the US? Pretty much every country in the world imports goods from, > and exports goods to, the US. They wouldn't have anything to gain from this > > alleged "economic war". BS. Of course they would. That is how we beat the Soviets. It certainly was adventagous for us. > >We havent even begun to talk about what Keyoto would do to the middle > >east. If the US suddenly reduced the use of oil based fuels what do you > >think would happen to the Middle East economies? > > At what point would such a reduction qualify as "drastic"? If you lower > your oil import by 20%? Or 30%? Or...? > > BTW, cutting down on emission of greenhouse gasses is not simply a matter > of using less oil. FREX, filtering the emissions before spewing them out > into the atmosphere also plays a role. And we have had some of the most advanced laws and regulations to govern such things. The environement is one of the largest topics in US polotics and at the lunch table. We are buying and using lower and lower emmision vehicles and producing less and less polutants. Companies are competeing to be the most environemtnaly freindly becouse Americans are making the Stock dicisions based on this. We are buying the cleanest cares we can get which still perform the functions we need. I guarentee you that the first Auto company to release a hybrid or electric SUV will be the one with the best sales. Our gas production methods are the cleanist in the world. So much so that Gas is now cleaner in the US than Desil. Even though Desil is clearner burning, it puts more polutants in the air than modern Gas production methods. Enough to more than make up for and surpase the Gas on the burning side. Our producs no-longer contain CFCs. Not becouse of any law, but becouse we refused to buy the ones that did. While Europe may take a "big governemnt" stance, in the US we prefer to make changes based on education. Why make a bunch of laws and red tape when you could simply teach people what the right thing is? BTW, who has does the most smoking? > >The consensous in the scientific comunity is still out on whether the > >level at which ghgs are being emmited in the US will have any effect on > >the environment. > > The problem is that those who are opposed to anything more than a token > effort to reduce emissions, will use anything as an excuse. If 99% of all > scientists say "US emissions have a dramatic effect on the environment" and > > 1% says "US emissions have a neglible effect on the environment", they'll > still claim lack of consensus in the scientific community. But it isn't 99/1 its more like 50/50. > >The US does have laws to significantly reduce greenhouse gases on a slower > > >pace. Electiric cars or gas/electric vehicles are now becomeing quite > popular. > > And those make up how many percent of all motor vehicles in the US? I don't know, but as popular as they are, I can't emagine it being lower than Europe. > >We were very much in favor of a version of Kyoto which was slower and had > >an equal step down across the board. Or, even one which had a uneven > >stepdown, but was not so drastic that it would ruine the US economy, > > I doubt it would really ruin the US economy. Sure, you would have to make > some sacrifices, but that's something we all have to do. This "it would > ruin the US economy" sounds more like propaganda from the energy lobby in > Washington. Then you don't know what you are talking about. Sounds like you are listening to leftist propoganda. Before we make decisions of this nature we ask our leaning scientists about them. This time the echonomists and environemntal scientists came together and were able to show that the difrence in our reduced pace (which is actualy faster than that perscribed by Kyoto for most countries) will have very little effect (given that the most poluting countries will not be making a single change) on the environemntal. But that the agreement would have very significant effects on the economy. > >and in such a case it would have to include helpe to rebuild the ME > economies. > > Given the wealth generated by oil in the Middle East, I think they would be > > quite capable of keeping their economies running if they sold a bit less > oil. There might be some economic consequences for them, sure, but as I've > said before: we all have to make sacrifices. Why dosen't Europe broker that agreement with them first. Besides it's not jsut the goverments of those countries after al. They are not Democracies. It is the effect it will have on the people. Remember we don't actualy buy into the Global Warming thing. When you are making the decisions sacrifices mean a lot more and are very differnt things. The average person in the ME would be absolutly economicaly devistated. That is not an option. Why would you want something like that pushed on a people? And you know we would get the blame for it, not you. There have to be other options. > Jeroen van Baardwijk > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com > > > [Sponsored by:] > _____________________________________________________________________________ > The newest lyrics on the Net! > > http://lyrics.astraweb.com > > Click NOW! > ===== _________________________________________________ Jan William Coffey _________________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _____________________________________________________________________________ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
