From: ahk@chinet.com
Charles Ellson wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>>>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 22-Apr-15 09:16, John Levine wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>It's just like the stupidity of our CDMA/TDMA/iDEN war while the
>>>>>>>>>>>>world standardized on GSM. Despite its flaws, GSM is far
>>>>>>>>>>>>superior to all of the US-developed systems _and_ costs less due
>>>>>>>>>>>>to economy of scale, which is why all US carriers are finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>moving that way.
>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, c'mon, GSM came later. And it was mostly Europe that decided to
>>>>>>>>>>>use an international standards-making process because of the
>>>>>>>>>>>relatively small countries; I don't recall any other part of the
>>>>>>>>>>>world being involved.
>>>>>>>>>>Quite right. It was developed by ETSI, where E stands for European.
>>>>>>>>>It was developed by CEPT and later transferred to ETSI.
>>>>>>>>That would be the consortium of European post offices, not a world-wide
>>>>>>>>standards-making process, so your earlier statement was wrong. Who else
>>>>>>>>would have developed it? Under European socialism, the post office was
>>>>>>>>put in charge of the telephone infrastructure.
>>>>>>>In most cases long before socialism was a working (FSVO "working")
>>>>>>>concept. Communications were generally kept within control of
>>>>>>>government agencies from long ago, the most convenient department
>>>>>>>tending to be the national Post Office which already dealt with
>>>>>>>letters and later usually inherited telegraphs followed by telephones.
>>>>>>>Describing the governments at the relevant times as "socialist" would
>>>>>>>in most cases be a bit of a joke.
>>>>>>Both telegraph and telephone began as utilities owned by shareholders;
>>>>>>neither was begun by government.
>>>>>This was in a European context ("Under European socialism" above).
>>>>>Even if private, the operations would often be subject to a government
>>>>>monopoly. In the UK, the GPO claimed a monopoly on telegraph services
>>>>>and this was confirmed by statute in 1869, telephones being later
>>>>>ruled to be included within telegraphs, the last non-municipal system
>>>>>being taken over in 1912; none of this involved anything recognisable
>>>>>as "socialism". A possibly unintended consequence was that failing
>>>>>systems which would otherwise have closed down were taken over and
>>>>>kept in use as part of the expanding national network.
>>>>I have no idea why not, then. Coulda sworn I've heard the government
>>>>single-payer system for health care referred to as "socialized medicine",
>>>>so what else could it be? It ain't capitalism.
>>>A form of compulsory health insurance originally.
>>So in your view, nothing that has the characteristics of socialism
>>is socialism.
>Is compulsory motor insurance "socialism" ?
Your analogy sucks. There's no comparison between a requirement to have
liability insurance with single-payer health insurance. For one thing,
liability is to other people and perhaps that is society's business.
>Both deal with circumstances where the great majority of the those
>"insured" will be involved in requiring the service at some time and in
>the end it costs everybody less to have a more or less uniform method
>of charging.
That's simply absurd. No one else at all is involved in one's personal
medical choices, or they shouldn't be except for socialized medicine.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
