dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2895
share rss forum feed

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to Yakup

Re: A Right!

said by Yakup:

I believe we can live without electricity, phone, or even driving just like without internet.

However today so many businesses rely on internet for their existance I think internet is just like electricity.
There is a flaw with your thinking though. Tell those 12 people that died recently in this heatwave in AZ. It's a necessity to keep water pumping, toilets flushing, fridges working to keep food fresh, I can keep going. But electricty is definetly a necessity.

Phone? Yea.. but still, it's considered a lifeline for emergency purposes. You can purchase a cell phone today and use it for 911 service at no charge. SOme states require that disconnected phones stay active for 911 only use if requested and especially during non-pay temporary disconnect. So phones can go either way.

In this post, I think the general topic is about residential broadband, not business class service either.

Also, to a previous post above, it was mentioned that work relies on internet services for 401K and other services. I do believe that if companies consolodate federally required data and information on a company intranet only delivery system that they must give access at the work place for those with out computers. Or, they have to make it available in another form.

So still, I haven't heard a convincing argument on how the internet is a necessity.


Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
reply to carlinniss

said by carlinniss:

I learned myself using the Internet.

Is this proper English?


Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
reply to RayW

You can still access the Internet without BB. Dialup will allow access to all that you have stated.



a

@qwest.net
reply to Brownbay

broadband is like having cruise control, you just have it & freak out if it doesn't work right all the time...


Zyniker
Zyniker
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Anaheim, CA
reply to Shadow01

To some extent, yes...if he meant he learned something of himself by way of using the internet...but I don't think that was the main part of this post...
--
Join the Theuth.com Distributed Computing Team!»distributed.theuth.com/deep_thought.htm



IamZed
Premium
join:2001-01-10
Dayton, OH
reply to ylen131

said by ylen131:

luxury, person can survive with out it
You could live without an education, too.
--
A thing worth doing is worth doing to excess


Mrq5
The Fab Four

join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI
reply to Brownbay

Without reading all the replies I vote with the topic starter.

Broadband is a normal progression from speech, writing, Pony Express, horse & buggy, electricity, running water, automobiles, flight, etc...

At one time all of the above was NOT a right. All have proven to provide a much better quality of life which quickly transformed into a RIGHT rather than a luxury for the wealthy. Its only logical that Broadband should be next. Broadband offers a much better quality of life for all that use it. Sure, you could have continued to use the out-house and live without running water but human nature asks WHY???



calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
reply to charlie hp

This is not unlike what some CLECs were proposing after the Telecom Act of '96 started to get bogged down--the ILECs would be just wholesale facility providers, and all retail would be through separate retail enterprises--and the ILECs would have to treat all other retailers the same as they treated their affiliate.

As a proposal, it was a non-starter following the FCC's turn away from forcing competition following Reed Hundt's replacement by William Kennard in the Chairmanship. It had (and still has) good arguments in favor, but is doomed in the current environment where the whining Baby Bells claim that any lack of a monopoly on their part is a "disincentive to investment".

Philosophically, this proposal is sort of like saying that a motor vehicle transport system is a vital need--so the governmental units will use private industries to build backbone (roads) and the actual "transport" will be done by others using more-or-less standardized transport vehicles....

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!



calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
reply to Anubis Prime

The Government has to fund RIGHTS.....

A more important fact:

If something is a RIGHT, the government has to fund it for those who can't afford to buy it themselves. Examples include public school fees and lawyers for those accused of a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Basic telephone service is not (yet) a RIGHT. For heaven's sake, grow up people. Your compulsive needs to game and flame aren't sufficient justification to call BB a right.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!


reply to ylen131

Re: A Right!

said by "ylen13":
luxury, person can survive with out it.
What about a postal mailbox? Is that a luxury? Or is it an essential component of a free state / free population, in order to exercise their essential political rights?

Let's face it, *everything* is "on the internet" these days. It is (mostly still) a very democratizing medium. In fact, many gov't services and documents are available over the internet. Even more, some of those are going to be made internet-only, for the most part, within 10-15 years, if only for reasons of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If that happens, then a citizen not having internet access, would be very disenfranchising, I think. As much so as not having a postal mailbox, if not actually more so.


wifi rocks

@verizon.net
reply to G_Poobah

said by G_Poobah":
The government subsidised UNIVERSAL phone service. Can you say that the internet is different? not really. Both were considered 'luxuries' when they started, but today you can't survive without a phone (except for some very rare obscure area's). In subsidizing phone service everywhere, the early adopters were forced to pay more to make up for the unprofitable customers. Do we want to do that again for broadband?

The problem is simply wires. It costs a LOT of money to run wires everywhere. Running fibre to obscure towns, obscure roads in those towns, and widely distributed houses on those roads would be a very very expensive proposition. But is it fair to them that they don't have it? I mean, the government gave the cable and phone companies HUGE subsidies to build out in the populated areas (i.e. right of way, etc). Doesn't that free subsidies give the companies a legal obligation to support EVERYONE then? I would argue yes, since the telco's and cableco's have gotten subsidized by the government, they have an obligation to run wire everywhere.
Here's a wild idea - you know that "Federal Universal Service fee", that most DSL subscribers get charged (cable is currently exempt, being just an "information service provider", not having anything to do with telephony)? Instead of the ILEC charging that (and not doing much with it) - why not allow for the possibility for the subscriber themselves to help assist in providing that "universal service", and in the process, obtain a credit that cancels out their having to pay that fee? What I'm suggesting is that - using Verizon DSL subscribers as an example here - customers should run their own WiFi "hotspots", on behalf of "universal service"-type benefits to their neighborhood and society at large.

Here's how it could work technically, in order to ensure that too much paying-subscriber bandwidth isn't used up, and that their own personal computers are protected: 1) first, rate-limit the (public) wireless connections in the router firmware, either in the DSL modem or the wireless router, and 2) allow the "public access" wireless connections, to use a secondary PPPoE session connection / secondary IP address, different than the customers, and from the POV of the customer's computers or the dynamic IP address that they recieve from Verizon as an authenticated paying customer, those wireless connection IPs would be just another random "outside" IP on the internet at large.

If Verizon were "nice" about this, they would even provision the DSL subscriber's lines for a small extra potential bit of bandwidth on their ATM network, such that only those (public) wireless users could use it, but the subscriber couldn't. So the customer still gets their 1.5Mbit or whatever, and if the line can support it, an extra 128-256Kbit for any potential passer-by wireless users.

Even *better* than that - I've been thinking recently about all of the possible uses for portable, WiFi-enabled "web pads" (and variants thereof). Verizon could sell WiFi enabled portable devices, that could be used to: 1) surf the web (say, a small 640x480 LCD / touchpad), or 2) place VOIP calls (kind of like a cell-phone, but WiFi-enabled), and 3) buyers of these devices, could use them in conjunction with public-access-enabled customer-run WiFi "hotspots"! (As well as potentially publically-run ones as well.)

This sort of joint private ownership of access infrastructure is easily possible, given the technology of today, and given appropriate safeguards, could be done in a way which does not technically nor legally "endanger" the private owners of this infrastructure.

It would be somewhat similar to those people that have their own power-generating equipment on-site, and in some cases, instead of drawing power from the "public" grid all of the time, sometimes they actually can contribute power back, and get paid a credit for doing so. I have no idea how common that currently is, but I've heard of that being the case in some places.

It would be conceptually similar to the telco installing a wire-line telephone to a private user, and also taking the opportunity to string a second phone line to the premises, and with the homeowner's permission (and proper credit), attaching a local-usage "mini cell tower" to the property as well. Shared joint ownership of infrastructure. It *could* work, should people be forward-thinking enough to accept it.

In fact, it's not a whole lot different than the current situations regarding publically-accessable payphones, and public postal-deposit boxes that you can place mail into. And better still, there is no "physical" issue with regards to security or access, with WiFi. As you as you have the device on and broadcasting a signal, that's all you need!


wifi rocks

@verizon.net
reply to Mrq5

said by "Mrg5":
Broadband is a normal progression from speech, writing, Pony Express, horse & buggy, electricity, running water, automobiles, flight, etc...

At one time all of the above was NOT a right. All have proven to provide a much better quality of life which quickly transformed into a RIGHT rather than a luxury for the wealthy. Its only logical that Broadband should be next. Broadband offers a much better quality of life for all that use it.
That does make a lot of sense, even if that viewpoint has a slight "liberal" leaning to it.

How do you define "broadband" though? As any sort of faster-than-dialup internet access? "Always on" internet access, perhaps regardless of speed?

Perhaps a contrasting POV:
Even homeless bums can beg enough change to use a pay-phone though, they don't get a free phone-line installed just for them or their own street-corner.

So I guess my POV is somewhere in-better. Internet access in general is a very democratizing thing, and valuable to increase the quality-of-life for society. So many things are being done "on the internet". So I think that there should indeed be either "universal", or at least inexpensive public access to the internet. Whether that involves connecting cheap low-end access terminals to pay-phones, or what, I'm not sure. But it will eventually happen.


BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA
reply to Brownbay

Re: is the telephone a Luxury or necessity

Century-old telephone tax may finally be repealed
(Washington, D.C.) Rep. Dave Camp today voted to repeal the three percent federal excise tax on telephone bills and other telecommunications services.

Congress first enacted a telephone excise tax to help pay for the Spanish-American War in 1898. Back then, this "temporary" tax amounted to one penny on long-distance phone calls costing more than 15 cents. Over the years, the federal phone tax has survived several attempts to phase it out and scale it back. Congress made it a permanent 3 percent tax on telecommunications services in 1990.

“The Spanish American War Telephone Tax is a relic of the 19th Century -- back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders," said Camp. "It's time to make the phone tax surrender after its 102-year battle with the American people. The tax is unfair and this repeal provides direct tax relief to almost every household."

The tax applies to phone services such as subscriber line charges, add-on features like call-waiting and caller ID, toll call services, directory assistance, and long distance and wireless. “This is just another example of how Washington DC has taken the taxpayer’s money for a war that started in 1898 and ended over one hundred years ago. I am pretty sure we have paid off the Spanish-American War, ” Camp said. “The last time I checked, the telephone was a necessity, not a luxury.”

»wwwc.house.gov/Camp/newsarticle.···rdID=325



boogi man

join:2001-11-13
Jacksonville, FL
kudos:1
reply to Mrq5

Re: A Right!

except that not all that you have listed is a constitutionally protected right

at this point alot of us would have a hard time getting by without broadband service some would have to actually commute or move because of the ability to telecommute and dev work done from home. thats not to say it can't be done without though. the public libraries in my area are doing a bangup job of providing that highspeed outlet to the public with existing tax dollars

i really dont see broadband as a right. perhaps we should focus our activism on things like healthcare, public transportation, the homeless epidemic, abused children i could go on.



kangabil
Do It Now, Do It Right
Premium
join:2005-05-15
Australia
reply to Brownbay

Try having this argument with say a Kalahari Dessert tribesman, a Bangladeshi tsunami victim and a hobo; don't think they would consider it at all let alone give the topic a rating out of 1 to 10.

Get serious folks.
--
Who was that masked man?



Ka_Pow

@61.8.x.x
reply to Brownbay

more than just a 'utility'

certainly NOT a luxury. luxury is a relative concept, and depends from person to person.

now, those people who are drawing comparisons between 56K and 10MBPS, are deludeded and hypocritical when they say, well 56k is a necessity, but the latter is a luxury.

if you go to 3rd world countries, then screw 56K, even proper electricity and running water are considered a luxury, because they have none of that right now.

so, who do we draw comparisons to? draw intelligent and relevant comparisons please, and in doing so, you will come to the unmistakable conclusion that 10 MBPS, or 10GBPS, it will never be a luxury, but will always remain a necessity for the people concerned, the very people who are buying or thinking of buying it in the first place.

so stop with the morality BS.



FightingBlue

@direcpc.com
reply to Anubis Prime

I'm glad to know that you consider poor people to be expendable. I'll be sure to remember that, so that if I ever see you in a difficult situation, I'll supress my good samaritan urges and spit in your face.

By the way, housing and healthcare ARE neccessary for survival, Knuckledrag, which is why they are rights. I suppose next you're going to argue for privatizing Social Security, because old people can live off cat food just fine.



FightingBlue

@direcpc.com

1 recommendation

reply to IamZed

quote:
You could live without an education, too.

Given the tenor of his post, I suspect that he already does.


FightingBlue

@direcpc.com
reply to G_Poobah

You're very right about LEO satellites. In fact, as I recall you can do it with just 288, plus on-orbit backups, and it covers the entire world (Minus parts of Antarctica, but who cares? The penguins prefer WiFi.). As great as fiber is, offering effectively unlimited bandwidth, someone should have done a sat network first, to offer service to all the parts of the US that won't see fiber for 5-15 years, and all the non-industrialized parts of the world that won't see fiber for 150-200 years.


Freezone

join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI

1 recommendation

reply to Shadow01

said by Shadow01:

said by carlinniss:

I learned myself using the Internet.

Is this proper English?
No butit proves his point even more. He has assholes like you to teach him better.


Anubis Prime

join:2001-06-01
Pittsburgh, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to FightingBlue

Uh, no housing and healthcare are not rights. If they are then I am due for refunds for my insurance premiums and mortgage. Have you read the Bill of Rights? Some people just can't get over the fact that they not entitled to a living provided to them by the government. Public housing and Social Security in their CURRENT forms are disasters.

Does the history of the United States only begin after FDR implemented his WPA program? Did old people just curl up and die before FDR was president?

I would argue that privatization in some form, Socialist, is NECESSARY for the solvency of the Social Security program itself. Bill Clinton warned that there was a problem, and everyone agreed. Nowadays though...that same party of opposition spoon-feeds people the "there's nothing wrong with Socal Security" line.

I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about economics or how the government works, but since you probably believe that there really is a Social Security "Trust Fund" let's make it clear that it there used to be, but there is no more. There was nothing to put in a "Lock Box".

Furthermore, no sensible person has a problem helping or funding programs for the elderly or sick/orphaned children. The problem is that your argument is a paper tiger. You see, you can collect a "Disability" check because oh...you drink too much, happen to put a heroin needle in your arm, or decide to eat a nourishing meal and throw it up afterward. Soon, you will be able to eat yourself into one as "obesity" will become a disability. Hell, physicans will readily admit that fake/phantom wastebasket diagnoses such as "fibromylagia" only exist to save them from being sued by patients who are actively seeking disablity.

Problem is--retired Mr. Jones on social security in the hospital can't get test X or physical therapy paid for. Not enough money to go around no matter how high you, Karl Marx or anyone raises taxes. Too many people have their hands in the pot.

If the original idea of FDR's Social Security is to remain feasible, we have prune the life-sucking vines that Lyndon Johnson's Great Society have grown.

Obviously broadband internet isn't a "right".
--
Quinn's First Law: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to Shadow01

said by Shadow01:

You can still access the Internet without BB. Dialup will allow access to all that you have stated.
Well why don't you go try it again for a few months? Ever try to accomplish anything on the internet in the past few years without broadband?

Hell, we had a 768Kbps SDSL line at work that was painfully slow until a few months ago and our current 3Mbps Biz Class Cable line is getting there.

reply to Anubis Prime

Right, but the problem isn't grotesque government intervention (in the case of health), its grotesque overdevelopment of the industry itself. Too many people providing too little for too much. When one doctor's visit has to provide for several people's salary for two hours than the system is bloated. Its privatization, not public taxes, destroying the medical/tech sector in America.

I'll use a classic example I've used often to explain how tech and capital don't get along.

Ahem.

Drug company A makes 16 drugs to treat X. Drugs 1-16 are one of the companies main source of income. Researcher at drug company A finds a single drug/method to treat X. However, if the single drug is marketed, it will put the company out of business. Therefore, as far as capital is concerned, and stockholders are concerned (as an opaque headless whole) marketing the drug is bad. So head of the board doesn't want to be broke, HE doesn't have X. May as well suppress the drug, afterall, its good for the economy.

Okay, so yeah. Capital is not very benevolent. Duh. We know that. However, its actually malicious. It actually prevents progress in certain instances. Of course, then we'd have to define progress and I'd like to see you try that.

And disability. Yeah, what an awful idea huh? Give people less than $500 a month and ask them to live on it when they are mentally retarded. Provide almost no social service help so that these individuals can figure out the complicated disability/tax laws that they need to understand to survive. Don't allow them to make more than $100 dollars a week of their own income in addition to what you give them. Keep them stuck on a system that demeans their quality of life. Oh, but wait the system MIGHT be exploited, better to let a few hundred thousand people with serious needs die than allow the system to be exploited at all. If you had your way, my mentally disabled brother would be dead. Afterall, "he's bad for the free market."

Funny, its projected that the world will run out of oil reserves (if the rate of consumption continues) before social security runs out. But finding an alternative energy resource (which, by the way, has already been theoretically found several times over but thanks to the impossibility of a start up resource production company in the current old boy oligarchal market) is less of a priority. Social security, as an issue, is a drop in the ocean. Gi ahead and privatize it, as long as those over a certain age receive all of their back social security owed in a lump sum (with inflated modern value of course). I mean, or else the government IS stealing from them, something hardline laissez-fairests always seem to think the government is doing anyway. For once, they'd be absolutely right!

So fine, let young people waste their extra 75 bucks a week, wooey, big friggin' deal. Just don't take from those who had it stowed away by the government all these years.



charlie hp

@covad.net
reply to broadbanderexpanderc

You can get broadband now for under $40/month in pretty much every metropolitan and suburban location in america. Thats cheap. Hardly more than an average dialup ISP ($15/month) and a dedicated phone line ($20+/month after taxes and fees). Even if you're not making a lot of money, if getting broadband is one of your priorities, its not a problem. You'd be surprised at how many people under the poverty line actually have basic cable, which costs about as much. One of the saddest sights I see are the satellite dishes hanging near the windows on "projects" in chicago. They're living a building paid for with taxpayer money, they're kids probably arent getting what they need to succeed in school, and they're spending $60/month to get HBO so they can watch the "Kings of Comedy" specials. Great.

And if the burger flipper was a college kid then he would have internet in his dorm. Bottom line is that anyone who wants broadband can already afford it if they're willing to pay for it. People who work in america really arent that poor. And if you're so poor and decrepit as to be unable to afford $40/month max even as you really want it, then I stick to my point, you're probably beyond help.

What you people are saying is like saying "we should subsidize buying cars because people need cars to get to jobs and to school" or "we should subsidize shoes, he's missing out on so many opportunities".


I wonder why they aren't getting what they need to succeed in their urban area public school but schools like the public school in West Chester, PA and Longmeadow, MA and other suburban communities get plenty of funding?

Oh yes! Because we allocate our government spending in ridiculous ways that promote the status quote and insure that certain people remain poorly educated so as to provide the unemployment pool that keeps laborers hinged to an exploitative market, hoorah! The schools that need national funding are ignored and not given the hands-on approach needed to make them work. Teachers in wealthy suburbs make more than urban and rural teachers. Ridiculous. The government passes standards (No Child Left Behind) but than illegally demands states fund the programs to pass those standards. Blah, blah, blah.

Frankly, I think giving away cars and shoes to everyone in the world would be fantastic. I don't know why you hate free stuff so much!

"Beyond help." Hmmm ... never heard that one in economic theory before. I think you're being a bit unacademic there ...

But all of those things HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE SO LET'S GET ON TOPIC

Let's look at my statement again ...

"And as for your ideas on the cheapness of broadband... That is the LOWEST possible price for broadband in the country, where in places like Korea its the norm. Please give the percentage of individual households in the country who have the option of paying $15 for broadband. Then, when/if you do find them, and they change your mind about what you've posted, please compare those figures to other nations. Then, post them here. Oh wait, you'd find your argument has been proven fallacious and most American households, I'd say upwards of 24/25 or more CAN'T get broadband service for the $15 per month you're advertising."

You have not done what I asked, at all.

Show me the exact percentage of houses who can get broadband for that rate. Heck, show me the numbers fo $40 and compare it with other countries. And I don't mean slow satellite times, I mean broadband and broadband speeds.

Why do you act like my issues are with exclusively urban poor? My issue is with rural areas as well. My issue isn't with "you should be able to afford it" its with "look at other countries' prices" in comparison. My issue has NOTHING to do with subsidies. You don't buy broadband cheaper for people. You make it cheaper in the market. You don't have to subsidize it. You stop the price-gouging of exploitative companies. You promote profitable municipalization.

Tell me this, if an IOU can build a system, maintain that system, provide service AND make a profit, than logically, can't a "city" "or (individually-owned utility) do the same thing cheaper? Afterall, it doesn't even want to make a profit! It can charge the lowest price possible. Woot. Woot. Seems other countries figured that out to solve rural area penetration problems, didn't they?

Its not about subsidization in anyway. Its about fostering lower prices. A profit is still a profit even if its a more reasonable profit.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to Matt3

Mevans, if the average economy car can get you from A to B doing about 60 MPH, but you buy a real tricked our Vette or something that can do 80+ easily, aren't you still both getting from point A to B, just one gets there faster?

I guess then we should all have more affordable luxury cars or sports cars so we can all move around faster too.

and 768 is hardly "painfully slow" - Just more to prove that BB is a luxury. (And again, at work, it's generally called business class networks.. the topic here is broadband which is usually a home service term.



a

@qwest.net
reply to ylen131

ok, let's disconnect the cruise control from your vehicle since that is a luxury as well



Rayden911

@rr.com
reply to Brownbay

It's all three, 1) It's a "utility" (Cable Company), 2) It's "right" if it were not availible to all it would be discrimination, 3) It' a "luxury" You can live without.



Anubis Prime

join:2001-06-01
Pittsburgh, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

3 edits
reply to broadbanderexpanderc

...again as always words are put into my mouth.

Let's clarify:
1. Medicine, healthcare and insurance are INDEED in trouble in-part because of government intervention. A long, long time ago in an era forgotten by the current generation, there was such things as "wage freezes"...meaning companies could not pay someone what they were worth by law. So, to try and figure out what to give people as incentives since they couldn't offer more money, insurance companies came along and said "hey, why don't you offer health insurance?". The government was lobbied to make insurance a tax deductable line-item and BOOM, benefits are born. Keep in mind, the higher the upfront cost, the higher the deduction/writeoff for companies (thus utility costs, etc usually show higher rates for commerical than residential). Now come modern day. We have the government regulating the price of goods and services. Medicare only pays "so much" for procedures, medication, etc. So if an X-Ray actually costs $300, Medicare says that they will pay only $80. Insurance companies then, with HMOs (which are a privatized version of socialized medicine) follow suit and adjust their reimbursment schedules to parody that of Medicare. Medicare IS THE FORCE that artifically distorts the market. You have doctors who have taken positions as bean-counters working for the HMOs telling other doctors what they can and cannot do.
Solution: Health insurance as a "benefit" needs to be discontinued but offered in a different way. Instead, employers could offer medical spending accounts where say, the $500 they normally pay per employee goes into that account...then the individual employee can SHOP AROUND for the best price for insurance. With competition prices would drop and service would increase. You have to understand the fundamental difference between "cost" and "price" to understand this.

Insurance has to be taken out from the thumb of the government. While the government is great at burning branch-Davidians and handing out USDA cheese, they STINK at the healthcare business.

2. As far as disability goes. Nowhere did I say that we shouldn't help the helpless. There ARE unemployable people out there. There are sick children and the elderly. Of course they should be helped. You are very naive if you think that ANY politician, Republican or otherwise would EVER risk taking away Social Security from the elderly. Wouldn't it be foolish to think that those aforementioned politicians want us to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water. Last time I checked, they and their children or grandchildren LIVE on this planet and would have to breathe and drink like the rest of us. We don't have to believe the Sierra Club or E.L.F.. What they say is nonsense. Back to topic: Your mentally disabled brother IS NOT the same as an alcoholic or a heroin addict. Get my statements correct. It is FAR more than a few people abusing the system; and it's not even their fault, it's lobbying groups, lawyers, and kiss-ass nanzy-panzy psychiatry claiming everything including your obesity is a "disability". How many times has the DSM been changed to fit the ideology of some lobbying group?

3. As far as your drug analogy you are both right and wrong. As someone who works in healthcare, in practice and formerly in research I will tell you that the FDA creates huge regulatory and financial hurdles for pharm. companies. If your Company A invents a major drug that actually "cures" something, they will not be out of business, they will have a patent and will make a financial killing. If you understand anything about medicine is that drugs are usually created as "treatments" some of which for symptoms of disease. Others such as antibotics kill offending bacteria. In the case of antibiotics, people ALWAYS will continually become infected meaning antibiotics have a long market lifespan. Antiviral/retroviral medications such as those to slow the progression of HIV, are not a "cure", and we know HIV continues to spread despite education and these drugs.

Despite when certain segments of our society wanted us to believe in the 1980's and 1990's that HIV was caused by a "lack of funding", we know better nowadays.

Your drug company analogy looks good on an internet forum, but bears no resemblence to reality. Which drugs were "withheld from market"? Hell, some of them should have been kept off the market a bit longer.

One caveat is YES, the pharmaceutical companies are large, capital rich companies with much influence and marketing/lobbying power. You will not get argument from me regarding the dark things that happen there (multidose vials/mercury/autism rates--covered up from Clinton to Frist). Keep in mind that many (and dare I say most) pharm. companies have "compassion" programs that give medications to people for free.

The problem my friend is an overbearing, and sometimes over-regulating government. The problems is a 9 million line progressive tax code that benefits politicians and their lobbyists. The problem is the government (via Medicare) distorting the free market. The problem is we have a "therapeutic society" that skirts personal responsiblity and directs blame for personal failings at a large, foggy entity called "society". A psychology student once told me that a drug addict is a drug addict because of "society". Same with beggars and alcoholics. I asked her what I was doing wrong when "I" caused this to happen to those people. She looked at me baffled??? and I said "Aren't I part of SOCIETY?" My getting up every day, going to work, and paying my bills was just driving needles into peoples arms and the blow up their noses. How awful of me.

Have Medicare/Social Security helped people? YES they have, and they should. They needs to be fixed. I haven't heard any other plans out there to do so other than what's already proposed. Most of us are open to ideas, but none are offered...just NO NO NO!. Harry Reid was ALL FOR partial privatization...of course until a Republican proposed it. When Roberts is slammed because of Roe vs. Wade...it's political. No one slammed DARTH VADER Ginsberg when she said (paraphrased) that Roe vs. Wade was a bad prescident.

It's hard not to be political, but you have to remember that most of the departments that run the social programs are no longer there to help people. They are there for self preservation...to continue the bureaucracy whether they are corrupt or have absolutely no positive effect.

Some need help which most of us are willing to give. I do think that the cure for many ills is.....

The ALARM CLOCK. It wakes up the ol' check-takin', belly-achin', baby-makin' rear up out of bed in the morning. I can tell you PLENTY of stories about the virtues of this but I'm long winded here.


carlinniss

join:2003-05-12

1 edit
reply to Freezone

said by Freezone:

No butit proves his point even more. He has assholes like you to teach him better.
Hahahah Exactly!

Oh, and I didn't say I learned English on the Internet. Geez, like no one here has ever messed up on grammar.

I learned web development, and I think a lot of people would benefit from having the Internet available. There's a boob tube in every house spouting nothing but utter garbage...

Why not have something worthwhile as an option?