From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:55:01 +0000 (UTC), "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:   
   >>>>>>>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.   
   >   
   If you are ill beyond self-help you become a medical liability upon   
   others just as with having a car accident involving more than your own   
   vehicle you become a liability upon others.   
      
   >>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,   
   >   
   You might not have the opportunity to make a choice so have you got   
   relevant instructions tattooed somewhere ?   
      
   >or they shouldn't be except for socialized medicine.   
   >   
   You treat all your own ailments ? Good luck when the chainsaw slips.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)