Is C++ a boondoggle?

[dave_mikesell]

On May 19, 7:51 pm, (e-mail address removed) wrote:

Most European countries today show longer average lifetimes,
less infant mortality, etc. than the U.S.  Usually
significantly.

Re: average lifetimes, many factors contribute to that besides health
care (e.g. murder rates, auto accidents, lifestyle, etc). If you're
using the WHO report of 2000 to justify your claims, I'm not sure it's
the best barometer.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

 Where health care is concerned, the U.S. is
closer to the third world than it is to western Europe.
FUD.


There are many reasons for this, but the fact that quality
health care is available regardless of income is certainly a
contributing factor.

No one is denied health care in the US, and that fact increases costs
for the rest of us who pay.

 

[Phlip]

He should, within the laws of that country, and as long as he takes
care of himself and family. Are you OK with floods of illegals
invading France and freeloading on your system?

Ain't he one of them?

Careful how you profile there...

 

[dave_mikesell]

Re: average lifetimes, many factors contribute to that besides health
care (e.g. murder rates, auto accidents, lifestyle, etc).   If you're
using the WHO report of 2000 to justify your claims, I'm not sure it's
the best barometer.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_lo...

More debunking of myths. Not meant for idealogues, but perhaps for
those who might be influenced by their FUD.

http://tinylink.com/?W70x3pUhhw

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272

 

[Lionel B]

He should, within the laws of that country, and as long as he takes care
of himself and family. Are you OK with floods of illegals invading
France and freeloading on your system?

Dunno about France, but speaking for the UK most of the "illegals" are
doing shitty work that none of the "legals" want to do, for poverty wages
(it's been said that some sectors of the economy would simply collapse
without them). I feel that that alone entitles them to the benefits that
the health system offers; but I'd prefer they were all made legal - then
they can pay taxes and would not by definition be "freeloading".

 

[coal]

You can believe what you want.  The fact remains that all of the
statistical indicators show the opposite.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Here's an example of
what I'm talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/business/global/16euro.html?_r=1
It claims, "Europe went through an even steeper fall than
the United States..." I don't go along with the rest of
that sentence that economists thought it would be the
worst point in the economic cycle for the region. Things
may improve a little here and there, but by 2012 they'll
be worse than they are today.

Quality treatment certainly exists, for those rich enough to pay
for it.

Some of the rich don't deserve quality treatment though,
right?

What is it they say: all of the problems of the United States
can be attributed to a too liberal immigration policy---on the
part of the American Indian.

We are paying for not policing the borders and the lives
taken by illegal immigrants is growing.

Just curious, but why shouldn't a person have a right to live
where ever he wants?  That would seem to be a basic freedom to
me.

So If someone wants to live in my house they just have
to kill me out first, I guess. But I wouldn't go along
with a less extreme interpretation of your statement
either. A sovereign country has the right to accept or
deny individuals entry. I'm fine with a liberal
immigration policy, but expect those who would force
themselves upon us to be shot. If you want to live
somewhere else you have to ask the authorities of that
other place if you may live there. They should be able
to check into who you are and then make a decision.
The sovereignty of most countries is on the decline,
but in saner times that's how it worked.


Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webEbenezer.net

 

[Balog Pal]

Most European countries today show longer average lifetimes,

less infant mortality, etc. than the U.S. Usually
significantly. Where health care is concerned, the U.S. is
closer to the third world than it is to western Europe.

There are many reasons for this, but the fact that quality

health care is available regardless of income is certainly a
contributing factor.


But as TANSTAAFL, this will not last for much long, and collapse of the
system is on the corner...

Technology in healthcare developed way faster than research in the morale,
sociology and phylosophy, creating a major inbalance of using resources.
(I.e. we can prolong life for some days or weeks spending millions, but
there is no real framework to tell how to allocate the limited amount of
money...)

In so many countries the imbalance is covered by just accumulating debt.
That already collapsed recently. The rest will follow shortly.

 

[James Kanze]

He should, within the laws of that country, and as long as he
takes care of himself and family. Are you OK with floods of
illegals invading France and freeloading on your system?

I think that to live where you want is a basic freedom, just
like freedom of speach. Practically, of course, it isn't widely
recognized, and can't easily be implemented, at least not
rapidly. But the poster I was responding to suggested nothing
less than shooting people trying to exercise that freedom, which
is tandamont to shooting people for trying to exercise freedom
of speech. We don't shoot people for that, even in contexts
where we accept that freedom of speech can't be granted (crying
"fire" in a crowded theatre). When East German border guards
shot people trying to change where they lived, it was considered
by many a "crime against humanity".

As for "illegal immigrants freeloading on the system", in
practice, today at least, that's not a problem. In fact, it's
usually the reverse: because they work, they contribute to the
system, but because they're illegal, they can't get any of the
benefits. And what percentage of the population is "illegal
immigrants" anyway?

 

[James Kanze]

Dunno about France, but speaking for the UK most of the
"illegals" are doing shitty work that none of the "legals"
want to do, for poverty wages (it's been said that some
sectors of the economy would simply collapse without them).

Yes. It is sort of difficult to make a legal claim for minimum
wages if you're illegal.

I feel that that alone entitles them to the benefits that the
health system offers; but I'd prefer they were all made legal
- then they can pay taxes and would not by definition be
"freeloading".

They often do "pay" social charges (or at least, the social
charges are withheld from their pay---whether they finally end
up in the social organizations or not is another question). On
the other hand, they can't normally claim benefits, because to
claim the benefits, you need to show a valid identity card.

 

[dave_mikesell]

As for "illegal immigrants freeloading on the system", in
practice, today at least, that's not a problem.  In fact, it's
usually the reverse: because they work, they contribute to the
system, but because they're illegal, they can't get any of the
benefits.

Nothing could be farther from the truth in the US. They work, get tax
free income, and flood emergency rooms on the taxpayers' dime for
their health care, enjoy all the benefits of police protection, fire
fighting, public utilities, etc.

And what percentage of the population is "illegal
immigrants" anyway?

I believe the number of undocumented aliens in the US is around 12
million, which is part of that "47 million without health insurance"
number bandied about. There are also millions more that make between
$50-$75K a year and choose not to buy health insurance, millions more
eligible for existing programs like Medicare that do not sign up,
millions more who are without insurance for only a few months between
jobs, etc. The number of chronically uninsured is far, far less, and
naturally far, far less of a news story.

 

[James Kanze]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Here's an example of what
I'm talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/business/global/16euro.html?_r=1
It claims, "Europe went through an even steeper fall than the
United States..." I don't go along with the rest of that
sentence that economists thought it would be the worst point
in the economic cycle for the region. Things may improve a
little here and there, but by 2012 they'll be worse than they
are today.

Take a look at the evolution of the standard of living in the
various countries over the last thirty or fourty years.

Some of the rich don't deserve quality treatment though,
right?

Everyone deserves it.

We are paying for not policing the borders and the lives taken
by illegal immigrants is growing.

What percentage of the American population is illegal
immigrants? And why is it that when we read of actual murders
and such, illegal immigrants are rarely involved?

So If someone wants to live in my house they just have to kill
me out first, I guess.

They'd have to buy it from you.

But I wouldn't go along with a less extreme interpretation of
your statement either. A sovereign country has the right to
accept or deny individuals entry.

Why? Or rather, why isn't the right to live where you want a
fundamental right, like the right of free speech? (I'm not
saying we can implement it anytime soon. Even free speech has
its limits. But what makes it different than free speech, in
principle.)

I'm fine with a liberal immigration policy, but expect those
who would force themselves upon us to be shot.

When East German border guards implemented that policy, it was
considered a crime against humanity.

If you want to live somewhere else you have to ask the
authorities of that other place if you may live there. They
should be able to check into who you are and then make a
decision.

And refusal should be motivated. (I have no problems with
refusing immigration to drug dealers and the like. On the other
hand, just limiting the number is really just an arbitrary
restriction on freedom of movement.)

What one would like to see, of course, is the purely economic or
political motives for immigration disappear---that anyone who
wanted to immigrate wanted to do so because they really felt
somehow more at home, or more comfortable, in the target
country.

The sovereignty of most countries is on the decline, but in
saner times that's how it worked.

Actually, restricting immigration is a relatively recent
phenomena. (Not that that's really relevant---in the past,
countries never had enough people.)

As for declining sovereignty, I'd consider international law a
good thing. Rather than might makes right, as has been (and
still largely is) the case for so long. The Nurenburg trials
did try to make a start at this principle, but we've still got a
long way to go.

 

[Phlip]

Nothing could be farther from the truth in the US. They work, get tax
free income, and flood emergency rooms on the taxpayers' dime for
their health care, enjoy all the benefits of police protection, fire
fighting, public utilities, etc.

Yeah! And they trashed the global economy by speculating on derivatives!

(Sheesh, do you follow _every_ distraction the demagogues point to??)

 

[James Kanze]

Re: average lifetimes, many factors contribute to that besides
health care (e.g. murder rates, auto accidents, lifestyle,
etc).

Certainly. Lack of sufficient food or clean water doesn't help,
either (and it affects some of the poorest third world countries
significantly). Even in western Europe, the southern European
countries have longer lifetimes, where as the northern ones do
better with regards to infant mortality. (I suspect that this
means better medical care in the northern countries, but a
better diat in the southern ones. But I have no statistics to
back that up.)

If you're using the WHO report of 2000 to justify your claims,
I'm not sure it's the best barometer.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_lo...

I've not seen the WHO report---I'm basing my statistics on the
CIA factsheets.

FUD.

It's a bit of hyperbole, but the actual statistics (e.g.
concerning infant mortality) are there for anyone to see. The
US rate of infant mortality is close to double the French one,
and France isn't particularly good compared to, say, Sweden.
(See
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.)

(FWIW: the article you cite doesn't seem to actually quote any
facts, just a lot of baseless speculation, conforming to a
political agenda. It does make one point, however: part of the
reasons the US ranks so badly is a lack of equitable access.
But what good is quality health care if it's not available to
the majority of the people?)

No one is denied health care in the US, and that fact
increases costs for the rest of us who pay.

I rather doubt that "no one is denied health care" (that's not
even true in western Europe), but mainly, I think it's a
question about the quality of care they get. And yes, if you
make a decision that no one shall be allowed to die because of a
lack of health care, then some one has to pay for it. Which is
really the main issue: the civilized world has more or less made
this choice (even the US) or pretends to have made it; the
question remains on how to pay for it (or who's going to pay for
it).

 

[pasa]

Why? Or rather, why isn't the right to live where you want a

fundamental right, like the right of free speech?

I can grant you free speech for free. To grant you medicare costs
money. To
grant you pension costs money.

Living in itself could be granted, but most countries have a 'system'
of
distributing stuff, i.e. you pay some taxes and get access to roads,
etc.
Moving in means access to those.
As long as such systems exist and goods are not falling from the sky,
countries want to control who can settle, so the immigrants will
allegedly
be a benefit for the people already there and not leeches.

(I'm not saying we can implement it anytime soon. Even free speech has

its limits. But what makes it different than free speech, in
principle.)

Economy.

When East German border guards implemented that policy, it was

considered a crime against humanity.

Come on, there emigrants were shot, not immigrants.
Now that is closer to fundamental freedom stuff, I mean allowing to
leave at
will to anywhere you get accepted. Though there is economy too, say if
the
country have 'free' education system financed by later taxes -- IIRC
Romania
asked emigrants to pay up for those costs.

And refusal should be motivated. (I have no problems with

refusing immigration to drug dealers and the like. On the other
hand, just limiting the number is really just an arbitrary
restriction on freedom of movement.)

(AFAIK) Normally the 'number' does not include the people who arrive
with
wealth.
The rest is more like speculation, so limit may make sense in theory,
I
don't know whether it is used correctly or not.

Actually, restricting immigration is a relatively recent

phenomena. (Not that that's really relevant---in the past,
countries never had enough people.)

As the centralisation of goods was ways lighter; also travel much
harder,
especially long distance, and the desireable places less crowded.
Also in
the past it was not considered a problem to let people just die on
the
street (i.e. of hunger or disease). Or shoot bandits on the spot, or
hang
them publicly. Those times are gone.

As for declining sovereignty, I'd consider international law a

good thing.

Any law is as good as it is (and can be) forced. Now who is there to
force
the 'international' law, and what resources, methods are there?

Rather than might makes right, as has been (and

still largely is) the case for so long. The Nurenburg trials
did try to make a start at this principle, but we've still got a
long way to go.

The Nurnberg trials are still at much debate, and will be for long
time.
Making up laws for the past is something the war-winners can do, but
if
becoming a practice, leads to nasty situatuion quite soon.

Sure, we van dream of a better world.

#include "Lennon/Imagine.mp3"

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Phlip:

Yeah! And they trashed the global economy by speculating on derivatives!

(Sheesh, do you follow _every_ distraction the demagogues point to??)

You guys are very off-topic[1].

Cheers,

- Alf


Notes:
[1] The Norwegian army recently changed over from what's been standard
ammunition since about WWII, to "environmental friendly" ammunition. Turned out,
after large-scale deployment, that it makes the soldiers sick and tends to not
only jam but actually destroy ze guns, i.e. that ammunition is "friendly" only
to the environment, if at all! So, our guys in e.g. Afghanistan had to refuse to
use it. And somehow these features were not uncovered by testing before
deployment, sort of like the feature of US Army bullet-proof vests (used in
Iraq) guaranteeing to not stop bullets, or e.g. the Hummer. Scandal! And
it's all the fault of "undocumented aliens". I'm sure, no human could do it.

 

[coal]

Take a look at the evolution of the standard of living in the
various countries over the last thirty or fourty years.

Should be forty.

Everyone deserves it.






What percentage of the American population is illegal
immigrants?  And why is it that when we read of actual murders
and such, illegal immigrants are rarely involved?

I don't know, but less than 10% I think. Some of the media
don't care about getting the truth out. Here's a Worldnetdaily
article that lists some of the under-reported rapes and
murders committed by illegal immigrants--
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57365

They'd have to buy it from you.


Why?  Or rather, why isn't the right to live where you want a
fundamental right, like the right of free speech?  (I'm not
saying we can implement it anytime soon.  Even free speech has
its limits.  But what makes it different than free speech, in
principle.)

Say two friends purchase a house together and decide to get
a third roommate. Those two should be free to choose who
they want to be the third roommate. Being able to pay the
rent is a factor usually, but if the two people have the
means, they may impose further restrictions on who they want.
They may choose someone who can't afford to pay what were
hoping to get, but would otherwise be a good roommate. And
if someone moved in without their permission, that person
should expect to be forced out with little regard for his
things. I certainly wouldn't hold it against the two if
they didn't give the interloper some of his things back as
a way to compensate them for the trouble he caused.

As far as policy, I would first warn people the border would
be defended with force for a week or two. After that, start
implementing it. I believe it would help decrease the
number of people attempting to force their way into the
country.

When East German border guards implemented that policy, it was
considered a crime against humanity.

Please. They were attempting to keep people from leaving not
keep people from entering. East Germans were being held
hostage and it was a crime. I've said that the US should have,
and probably still should, made it easier for people to
immigrate to the country legally. We need, though to keep the
criminals out. Unfortunately, we haven't done that and now
we're paying for it.

And refusal should be motivated.  (I have no problems with
refusing immigration to drug dealers and the like.  On the other
hand, just limiting the number is really just an arbitrary
restriction on freedom of movement.)

What one would like to see, of course, is the purely economic or
political motives for immigration disappear---that anyone who
wanted to immigrate wanted to do so because they really felt
somehow more at home, or more comfortable, in the target
country.

That leaves no say for those in the target country. Their
sovereignty should be respected.

Actually, restricting immigration is a relatively recent
phenomena.  (Not that that's really relevant---in the past,
countries never had enough people.)

As for declining sovereignty, I'd consider international law a
good thing.  Rather than might makes right, as has been (and
still largely is) the case for so long.  The Nurenburg trials
did try to make a start at this principle, but we've still got a
long way to go.

I'm not as optimistic about international law (a world
government) working out very well. The Bible (written
over 1700 years ago) warns that there will be such and
that it won't go so well. As far as I can tell the early
indicators confirm what the Bible says. If you disagree
with the status quo, you should expect to be persecuted.


Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webEbenezer.net

 

[dave_mikesell]

Yeah! And they trashed the global economy by speculating on derivatives!

(Sheesh, do you follow _every_ distraction the demagogues point to??)

The deriviates derived from mortgages mandated by the liberal
politicians to go to people who had no business owning homes. When
the government mandates bad banking, bad things happen.

To blame the financial crisis solely on the "free market" is short
sighted and frankly, incredibly naive.

 

[theget]

[snipage]

On May 21, 7:46 pm, (e-mail address removed) wrote:

Everyone deserves it.

Really? Why is that?

I wonder if next time I feel I deserve an operation it would be wise
of me to look up at the nice surgeon holding the sharp scalpel and
tell him, I know you're not getting paid what you think you deserve
for this operation, but I deserve the operation, so start cutting.
Because, you know, I deserve it.

What percentage of the American population is illegal
immigrants? And why is it that when we read of actual murders

and such, illegal immigrants are rarely involved?

I've heard around 20M out of a population of roughly 300M.


Do you know for a fact that anyone is collecting statistics about the
number of illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes? Perhaps they
commit a proportionate number of crimes and so we don't about as many?

All of them have already committed at least one crime.

Why? Or rather, why isn't the right to live where you want a
fundamental right, like the right of free speech? (I'm not
saying we can implement it anytime soon. Even free speech has
its limits. But what makes it different than free speech, in
principle.)

Do you lock the door to your home to keep out people who you don't
want coming in?

The right of free speech isn't free. Those who support it have to pay
for it. Sometimes with their blood.

People form governments to protect their rights and they can also have
the ability to control whom they offer these protections to. Just
like someone who buys health care may not wish to purchase it for a
total stranger.

When East German border guards implemented that policy, it was
considered a crime against humanity.

This statement is the reason that I am replying to this post.
Frankly, I've never heard of this before. Did anyone ever get shot
trying to get _into_ East Germany?

Leaving a place is different from trying to get in. If you are in
someone's home and you want to leave and they try to keep you there by
shooting you, thats murder in most places. If you want to get into
someone's home and they don't want you there and they shoot you, it's
not murder. You have a right to defend yourself and your home, or you
should.

And refusal should be motivated. (I have no problems with
refusing immigration to drug dealers and the like. On the other
hand, just limiting the number is really just an arbitrary
restriction on freedom of movement.)

Aribtrary? That's arbitrary. So what? What does arbitrary have to do
with it or not. Just as you can limit how many visitors your home has
at one time, so can a government limit the number of people it wants
to have enter its country.

Actually, restricting immigration is a relatively recent
phenomena. (Not that that's really relevant---in the past,
countries never had enough people.)

Immigration? Yes, maybe. Depends on who you were and where you
wanted to go. Not everyone was allowed to go everywhere they wanted
to. And I suspect it's been that way since some caveman kicked some
other caveman off his grandfather's hunting grounds.

Here's a story that's been kicking around the net for a while. I don't
know if it's true.

During the Carter administration President Carter met with the Premier
of China. Carter was pushing the theme that civilized countries let
their citizens immigrate at will. In response to this point the
Premier replied, "how many Chinese would you like me to allow to
immigrate to the U.S.--1 million, 10 million, 100 million?" Carter
then dropped the point scared at the thought of 100 million Chinese
immigrants moving to the U.S.

Theget

 

[James Kanze]

[snipage]

Everyone deserves it.

Really? Why is that?

Because it is one of the basic human rights, guaranteed by the
Univeral Declaration of Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well-being of himself and of his
family, including food, clothing, housing and medical
care and necessary social services, and the right to
security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

It's an ideal, of course, and there are often practical
difficulties in implementing it, but it is a fundamental
right, established in international law. (In practice, of
course, it's still "might makes right" in most of the
world.)

Anyway, this discussion is completely off topic, and has
really gone on too long. (An occasional off topic post
isn't the end of the world, but an exhaustive thread is
pushing it.)

 

[Bo Persson]

[snipage]

And refusal should be motivated. (I have no problems with
refusing immigration to drug dealers and the like. On the other
hand, just limiting the number is really just an arbitrary
restriction on freedom of movement.)

Aribtrary? That's arbitrary. So what? What does arbitrary have to
do with it or not. Just as you can limit how many visitors your
home has at one time, so can a government limit the number of
people it wants to have enter its country.

The definition of a country itself is pretty arbitrary, and most often
the result of the latest war in the region.

Hardly ever has "the people" chosen to be part of a particular
country. Or figured out why their cousin in the next village is not.

Immigration? Yes, maybe. Depends on who you were and where you
wanted to go. Not everyone was allowed to go everywhere they wanted
to. And I suspect it's been that way since some caveman kicked some
other caveman off his grandfather's hunting grounds.

No. The current passport system was introduced during WWI, to keep
enemy spies out and keep potential soldiers in.

Before that, you could travel all over Europe without any documents.
Trains travelled fast, carried a lot of people, and crossed lots of
borders. Who could keep track of all that? And why?


Bo Persson

 

[coal]

[snipage]

On May 21, 7:46 pm, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
Where health care is concerned, the U.S. is
closer to the third world than it is to western Europe.
There's room for improvement.  I live in Minnesota and a
lot of people from all over the world still travel to
the Mayo Clinic for treatment.
Quality treatment certainly exists, for those rich enough to
pay for it.
Some of the rich don't deserve quality treatment though,
right?
Everyone deserves it.

Really?  Why is that?

Because it is one of the basic human rights, guaranteed by the
Univeral Declaration of Rights:

    Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
    for the health and well-being of himself and of his
    family, including food, clothing, housing and medical
    care and necessary social services, and the right to
    security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
    disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
    livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I dont think that takes into consideration, "If a man
will not work, let him not eat." 2nd Thessalonians 3:10


Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webEbenezer.net