A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jobst



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 29th 17, 06:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,947
Default Jobst

On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.


Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.


Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.

While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.

It's a popular lie, by low-information individuals, that Democrats start
wars, when if you actually examine the evidence, since the end of WWII,
it's Democrats that tend to end wars, and Republicans that tend to start
them.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Ads
  #2  
Old August 29th 17, 10:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,947
Default Jobst

On 8/29/2017 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:37:55 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM,
wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.


Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.

While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.

It's a popular lie, by low-information individuals, that Democrats start
wars, when if you actually examine the evidence, since the end of WWII,
it's Democrats that tend to end wars, and Republicans that tend to start
them.


"Technically" he was required by treaty with France to help them in French Indochina. He had no intentions of sending anything other than advisers and so stated. He was a REAL general and he knew a hell of a lot more about it that you will ever even get a hint in your life.




"Technically" he was required by treaty with France to help them in

French Indochina. He had no intentions of sending anything other than
advisers and so stated. He was a REAL general and he knew a hell of a
lot more about it that you will ever even get a hint in your life.

Wrong. That commitment ended when Bảo Đại was deposed.

It was Nixon that ended Vietnam and not a Democrat.


Wrong. Ford was president when we withdrew from Vietnam, but it was
because the Democratic congress would not appropriate any more money to
continue to support South Vietnam.

Johnson was all for expanding the war but the protesters among the
flower children put the kabosh on that. And it was those same flower
children that voted Democrat. The ONLY reason that they protested the
war was because we had the draft and they were all afraid they'd go.
That ENTIRE time and history was just recently re-written by PBS. They
hid everything that occurred and pushed the socialist agenda to the hilt.

In case you didn't know it, it was Clinton that started the Gulf

wars. Do you think that after 9/11 Bush should have done nothing?

He could have attacked the country responsible for 9-11, which might
have made more sense than attacking a country that had nothing to do
with it. I don't think there's anyone that still believes that Iraq had
anything to do with 9-11.

Or do you think that he should have stopped any possibility that WMD
would become available to terrorists?

All the experts agreed that Iraq did not have any WMDs. Saddam Hussein
wanted to give that impression to Iran, but there was no evidence that
any WMDs still existed.

You shouldn't try to rewrite history to serve the right-wing agenda.
That's straight out of 1984.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #4  
Old August 29th 17, 11:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,889
Default Jobst

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:44:38 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:

Wrong. That commitment ended when Bảo Đại was deposed.


I sent you the actual history privately - at what point did the political control of this country fall into your hands?

It was Nixon that ended Vietnam and not a Democrat.


Wrong. Ford was president when we withdrew from Vietnam, but it was
because the Democratic congress would not appropriate any more money to
continue to support South Vietnam.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-war-is-ending

He could have attacked the country responsible for 9-11, which might
have made more sense than attacking a country that had nothing to do
with it. I don't think there's anyone that still believes that Iraq had
anything to do with 9-11.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration...r_the_Iraq_War

Or do you think that he should have stopped any possibility that WMD
would become available to terrorists?

All the experts agreed that Iraq did not have any WMDs. Saddam Hussein
wanted to give that impression to Iran, but there was no evidence that
any WMDs still existed.]


What "experts" are these?

You shouldn't try to rewrite history to serve the right-wing agenda.
That's straight out of 1984.


I actually worked on military contracts and know what really occurred. You on the other hand are perfectly willing to accept the words from the mouths of people with political power to gain by denying the facts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/w...s.html?mcubz=0

If these were old and useless exactly how did out troops get serious injuries from miles away from where these weapons were detonated?

If people READY for things like this were seriously injured what do you think would have occurred should a terrorist detonate one of these "old worn out" weapons in Times Square at noon on a workday?

I was seriously injured by gas because I rushed into the chamber before it was fulling evacuated. The levels HAD to be millions to one. Do you think that this is games that you can play with other's lives and pretend to be surprised if people are killed if some fool followed your jackass advice?
  #5  
Old August 30th 17, 03:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,171
Default Jobst

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.


Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.


Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.


The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two
at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be
held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to
this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more
populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an
election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism
spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia.

The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as
Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged
election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his
brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong
Van Minh.

While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the
Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for
the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort.

Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been
held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist
government.

It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the
world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war
from Yugoslavia.

The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration
is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of
Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese
dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in
1979.


While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.


My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was
primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible
rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be
frank the North had won the war.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #6  
Old August 30th 17, 04:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,889
Default Jobst

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.


Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.


The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two
at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be
held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to
this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more
populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an
election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism
spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia.

The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as
Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged
election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his
brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong
Van Minh.

While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the
Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for
the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort.

Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been
held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist
government.

It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the
world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war
from Yugoslavia.

The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration
is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of
Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese
dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in
1979.


While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.


My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was
primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible
rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be
frank the North had won the war.


Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM:
  #7  
Old August 31st 17, 03:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,171
Default Jobst

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM,
wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.

Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.


The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two
at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be
held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to
this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more
populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an
election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism
spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia.

The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as
Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged
election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his
brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong
Van Minh.

While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the
Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for
the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort.

Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been
held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist
government.

It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the
world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war
from Yugoslavia.

The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration
is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of
Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese
dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in
1979.


While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.


My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was
primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible
rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be
frank the North had won the war.


Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM:


Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in
heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely
revolt.

Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic,
pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment
proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it
is completely free.

Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over
80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and
about 90% of these resident households own their home.

Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has
increased by nearly 30%.

Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and
everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing
plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages
increased by 30% in the past three years.

Tell me more about " looking out for the common man".
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #8  
Old August 31st 17, 02:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,773
Default Jobst

On 8/30/2017 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM,
wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.

Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.

The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two
at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be
held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to
this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more
populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an
election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism
spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia.

The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as
Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged
election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his
brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong
Van Minh.

While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the
Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for
the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort.

Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been
held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist
government.

It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the
world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war
from Yugoslavia.

The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration
is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of
Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese
dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in
1979.


While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.

My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was
primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible
rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be
frank the North had won the war.


Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM:


Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in
heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely
revolt.

Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic,
pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment
proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it
is completely free.

Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over
80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and
about 90% of these resident households own their home.

Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has
increased by nearly 30%.

Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and
everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing
plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages
increased by 30% in the past three years.

Tell me more about " looking out for the common man".
--
Cheers,

John B.


OK, but we don't have your Rice Subsidy either.
We achieved our humongous debts without even giving away rice!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #9  
Old August 31st 17, 02:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,889
Default Jobst

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:52:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in
heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely
revolt.


That's right but when push comes to shove let's see just what goes.

Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic,
pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment
proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it
is completely free.


You're joking right? I have had over $18,000 in medical bills this year. Most of it paid for by insurance and every bit of it possible only because of modern medical instruments some of which I helped develop.

Are you telling me that a Thai can go to a clinic and have a $500,000 panoramic x-ray taken of his jaw? How many of these clinics are there? How many doctors trained in doing a sinus lift that requires donated bone material to achieve? That requires three different medications before and afterwards top stave off infections?

We have antobiotics in the USA that you can't even get in Europe and you're telling me that things are better than that in Thailand?

Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over
80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and
about 90% of these resident households own their home.

Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has
increased by nearly 30%.


Do you mean 30% more than nothing? Why don't you tell us all that the common Vietnamese isn't nothing more than a rice farmer now just as they were before the communists took over.

Tell me more about " looking out for the common man".


At what point did it became MY responsibility to make sure you took care of yourself?

  #10  
Old August 31st 17, 03:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,773
Default Jobst

On 8/31/2017 8:38 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:52:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in
heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely
revolt.


That's right but when push comes to shove let's see just what goes.

Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic,
pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment
proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it
is completely free.


You're joking right? I have had over $18,000 in medical bills this year. Most of it paid for by insurance and every bit of it possible only because of modern medical instruments some of which I helped develop.

Are you telling me that a Thai can go to a clinic and have a $500,000 panoramic x-ray taken of his jaw? How many of these clinics are there? How many doctors trained in doing a sinus lift that requires donated bone material to achieve? That requires three different medications before and afterwards top stave off infections?

We have antobiotics in the USA that you can't even get in Europe and you're telling me that things are better than that in Thailand?

Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over
80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and
about 90% of these resident households own their home.

Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has
increased by nearly 30%.


Do you mean 30% more than nothing? Why don't you tell us all that the common Vietnamese isn't nothing more than a rice farmer now just as they were before the communists took over.

Tell me more about " looking out for the common man".


At what point did it became MY responsibility to make sure you took care of yourself?


You can't understand utterly disparate systems meaningfully
by looking at one price. For example the open billing rate
for a hospital MRI scan around here is $5~12,000 [1] and yet
there are independent (cash only) $400 MRI outfits which are
profitable.

[1] Governments and insurers demand 80/90 percent off
'list'. The list numbers are basically meaningless and exist
only to set up the 'discount' contracts such that the net is
unchanged after discount. Unless you are a cash customer, in
which case they are ridiculous.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is jobst gone? Crescentius Vespasianus Techniques 7 June 23rd 11 12:08 AM
When Jobst ... Steve Freides[_2_] Techniques 1 January 20th 11 09:28 PM
Jobst Brad Anders Racing 20 January 19th 11 05:31 PM
Jobst TriGuru55x11 Rides 1 January 19th 11 01:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.