Carter-K8VT wrote:

John Barnard wrote:


Check the link that I posted awhile back concerning Canada/USA preventable
medical deaths. Your system still manages to kill off more than our system
does. Both countries need to take some action on this issue.

Sadly, our infant mortality rate is approximately twice as bad as that
in Cuba.

I was in Cuba of January this year. The people are remarkably inventive and
resourceful. Some of those 1950's cars that they somehow manage to maintain -
way too cool! I' m glad that I had the chance to get to visit before the
hurricane season. They have a very good medical system and quite the number of
well-trained specialists and their doctors are in big demand in that part of the
world.

I've seen various reasons as to why the USA has a relatively high (for a first
world country) infant mortality rate. Some say it's due to less than adequate
universal health care, some say it's due to the high number of Cesarean births,
or it may be due to the use of drugs to induce labour and so on. In all
likelihood it's a combination of all those reasons. Part of the problem is the
"drugs for everything" mentality of Big Pharma. Unfortunately, this leads to the
"thalidomides" and the "vioxxes" of the world. Lifestyle management (diet,
exercise, etc.) tends to get tossed by the wayside when pills are available.

JB

John Barnard wrote:
clifto wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Saw on TV where the Canadians want to erect a memorial to honor the
cowards from the US who ran up there during the Viet Nam war. Way to go
CanaDUH, nothing like honoring cowards.

Too bad the USA went a little crazy after that losing that war.

That's pretty much because right after we lost that war, the leftists
were able to move into power.

Strictly on a President/party basis, the Republicans have been in power longer
than the Democrats since 1975. You may want to revise your statement.

President only doesn't count. Too many of those years, a Democratic
Congress stifled every move the president wanted to make.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

dxAce wrote:

John Barnard wrote:

dxAce wrote:

John Barnard wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:

"John Barnard" wrote in message
...

I've seen various reasons as to why the USA has a relatively high (for a
first
world country) infant mortality rate. Some say it's due to less than
adequate
universal health care, some say it's due to the high number of Cesarean
births,
or it may be due to the use of drugs to induce labour and so on. In all
likelihood it's a combination of all those reasons. Part of the problem is
the
"drugs for everything" mentality of Big Pharma. Unfortunately, this leads
to the
"thalidomides" and the "vioxxes" of the world. Lifestyle management (diet,
exercise, etc.) tends to get tossed by the wayside when pills are
available.

I think drugs have much to do with the higher than normal infant mortality
rate in the US.. but not the ones from pharmaceutical companies. I suspect
that it's high drug use among women of child bearing age (along with
smoking, drinking, etc. during pregnancy.)

Certainly smoking, drinking and illicit drugs contribute to the infant mortality
profile. Pain killers, sedatives, anti-depressants, tranquilizers and so forth
are consumed in very large quantities and there is no such thing as a drug
without side effects. Very, very, very few drugs get tested on pregnant women
primarily due to concern with damage to the fetus.

Is it true that the three countries in the world where it's against the law for a
doctor to open a private practice are Cuba, North Korea and CanaDuh?

I heard that on the radio fairly recently.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Were you listening to Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan or the voices in your
head? If so, they were well off the mark if they lumped Canada in with the other 2
countries.

At any rate all three are pretty Socialist.

Run along and try to sharpen those listening skills, Dr. CanaDork.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

D-Ex-Ace Quisling,

Have you learned to do a proper Google search on someone yet? You are a wealth of
disinformation.

JB

dxAce wrote:

John Barnard wrote:

dxAce wrote:

John Barnard wrote:

clifto wrote:

John Barnard wrote:
clifto wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Saw on TV where the Canadians want to erect a memorial to honor the
cowards from the US who ran up there during the Viet Nam war. Way to go
CanaDUH, nothing like honoring cowards.

Too bad the USA went a little crazy after that losing that war.

That's pretty much because right after we lost that war, the leftists
were able to move into power.

Strictly on a President/party basis, the Republicans have been in power longer
than the Democrats since 1975. You may want to revise your statement.

President only doesn't count. Too many of those years, a Democratic
Congress stifled every move the president wanted to make.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

I suppose that the Presidential veto doesn't count for anything. Nixon had 43 total
vetoes and 7 were overridden, Ford had 66 and 12 were overridden, Carter had 31 and
2 were overridden, Reagan had 78 and 9 were overrideen, Bush I had 44 (and 2 pocket
vetoes which weren't counted in the totals as they were tried between sessions) and
1 were overridden and Clinton had 38 vetoes and 2 were overridden. In other words,
the Presidents had an effective hand in suppressing things that they didn't like.

You need to study our system a bit more. The party in power can see to it that
proposed legislation never even makes it out of committee to receive a vote.

Hit the books, Dr. CanaDork.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

D-Ex-Ace Quisling,

So give me some numbers to show how often proposed legislation never makes it out of
committee to receive a vote.

Heck, you know so much about the USofA, I figured you'd have those figures right to hand,
Dr. CanaDork.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

D-Ex-Ace Quisling,

Why am I not suprised that taxed your meager abilities. You spout off so much disinformation
these days that it makes me wonder how much listlogging you like to do.

JB

www.barnard.nl/english4.html
cuhulin

wrote:

www.barnard.nl/english4.html
cuhulin

Good site! If you like old Scottish castles, youmay like this site:
http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/...arnard_castle/

JB

John Barnard wrote:
dxAce wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
clifto wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
clifto wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Saw on TV where the Canadians want to erect a memorial to honor the
cowards from the US who ran up there during the Viet Nam war. Way to go
CanaDUH, nothing like honoring cowards.

Too bad the USA went a little crazy after that losing that war.

That's pretty much because right after we lost that war, the leftists
were able to move into power.

Strictly on a President/party basis, the Republicans have been in power longer
than the Democrats since 1975. You may want to revise your statement.

President only doesn't count. Too many of those years, a Democratic
Congress stifled every move the president wanted to make.

I suppose that the Presidential veto doesn't count for anything. Nixon had 43 total
vetoes and 7 were overridden, Ford had 66 and 12 were overridden, Carter had 31 and
2 were overridden, Reagan had 78 and 9 were overrideen, Bush I had 44 (and 2 pocket
vetoes which weren't counted in the totals as they were tried between sessions) and
1 were overridden and Clinton had 38 vetoes and 2 were overridden. In other words,
the Presidents had an effective hand in suppressing things that they didn't like.

You need to study our system a bit more. The party in power can see to it that
proposed legislation never even makes it out of committee to receive a vote.

So give me some numbers to show how often proposed legislation never makes it out of
committee to receive a vote.

When the Dems controlled Congress, it was a daily matter. Repubs back
then complained to anyone who'd listen that they couldn't even get a
bill to the floor. The only times they'd get a hearing is when some
maverick Dem needed some logrolling, and often their bills were sent
to die in committee.

Don't forget there are times when a veto is a fool's errand, too. When
it's obvious the Congress is bent on something, a presidential veto
becomes nothing more than a way to commit political suicide. I vaguely
remember a recent (i.e. last ten years) example, but the circumstances
don't come to mind.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

John Barnard wrote:

dxAce wrote:

John Barnard wrote:

dxAce wrote:

John Barnard wrote:

clifto wrote:

John Barnard wrote:
clifto wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Saw on TV where the Canadians want to erect a memorial to honor the
cowards from the US who ran up there during the Viet Nam war. Way to go
CanaDUH, nothing like honoring cowards.

Too bad the USA went a little crazy after that losing that war.

That's pretty much because right after we lost that war, the leftists
were able to move into power.

Strictly on a President/party basis, the Republicans have been in power longer
than the Democrats since 1975. You may want to revise your statement.

President only doesn't count. Too many of those years, a Democratic
Congress stifled every move the president wanted to make.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

I suppose that the Presidential veto doesn't count for anything. Nixon had 43 total
vetoes and 7 were overridden, Ford had 66 and 12 were overridden, Carter had 31 and
2 were overridden, Reagan had 78 and 9 were overrideen, Bush I had 44 (and 2 pocket
vetoes which weren't counted in the totals as they were tried between sessions) and
1 were overridden and Clinton had 38 vetoes and 2 were overridden. In other words,
the Presidents had an effective hand in suppressing things that they didn't like.

You need to study our system a bit more. The party in power can see to it that
proposed legislation never even makes it out of committee to receive a vote.

Hit the books, Dr. CanaDork.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

D-Ex-Ace Quisling,

So give me some numbers to show how often proposed legislation never makes it out of
committee to receive a vote.

Heck, you know so much about the USofA, I figured you'd have those figures right to hand,
Dr. CanaDork.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

D-Ex-Ace Quisling,

Why am I not suprised that taxed your meager abilities. You spout off so much disinformation
these days that it makes me wonder how much listlogging you like to do.

Not a bit. You?

LMAO

The CanaDork has been reduced to accusing me of listlogging.

LMFAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA