Re: We survived WITHOUT safety edicts

[Fern5827]

Great column.

One of the purposes of Government is fiscal management. That is,
redistribution of incomes.

The story I just posted from MD illustrates the point exactly. The facts are
that jobs are shrinking.

One of the aims of Government is to KEEP FOLKS EMPLOYED. If that means an
intrusive CPS, which takes children from ok parents where abuse nor neglect are
not substantiated, so be it.

We can criminalize almost every act someone does in the course of the day.

Like to do your laundry nude? Lewd act?

Make a stupid call and allow your son and his friend to ride in your trunk, and
you forfeit the right to talk to your son, UNLESS YOU ARE SUPERVISED.

Again, make-work jobs.

Fifty years ago, America was a manufacturing powerhouse. Now we are a
litigating POWERHOUSE.

Newsgroup alt support child protective services.

DESCRIPTORS; child abuse, cps, child protective, ACS, DYFS, DHS, DFS, DSS, CSB,
FAMILY LAW, PARENTAL RIGHTS, ASFA, NEGLECT, CAPTA.

JG sent in:

>Subject: We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
>From: "JG"
>Date: 7/24/2003 1:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Gee, Dr. Williams and I must be on the same wavelength! What a
>coincidence that his latest (today's) column addresses some of the
>differences between the '50s and '60s (he's somewhat older, so he threw
>in the '40s as well) and today.
>
>"The fact that these safety edicts saved some lives and prevented some
>injuries doesn't provide justification for them anymore than mandating
>that, because some Americans have headaches, aspirin be put in the water
>supply."
>
>from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20030723.shtml
>
>We made it
>
>
>Walter Williams
>
>July 23, 2003
>
>Whenever someone says that this or that government program is absolutely
>necessary, I always wonder, "What did people do and how did they survive
>before the program?"
>
>
>If someone says food stamps are absolutely necessary for poor people's
>survival, I wonder how America's millions of poor immigrants made it.
>Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our history.
>Was there a stealth food stamp program during the 1700s and 1800s?
>
>Then there's the question: How did we manage to build the world's
>greatest cities without the help of the 1965-created U.S. Department of
>Housing and Urban Development? Did cities become worse off or better off
>afterward? Or, how did we manage to produce energy to fuel the world's
>richest economy before the 1977 creation of the Department of Energy?
>
>Recently, I received an email titled, "We Made It." It had to do with
>the federal safety edicts of agencies like the U.S. Product Safety
>Commission, established in 1972, and the U.S. Department of
>Transportation, established in 1966. Congress created these and other
>agencies to "protect the public against unreasonable risks of injuries
>and deaths." That's how toys, cribs, child car seats and childproof
>medicine bottles came to be regulated. Considering we were a nation for
>nearly 200 years before Congress started protecting us against
>"unreasonable risks of injuries and deaths," a natural question is how
>we managed to survive and grow from a population of 4 million to the 280
>million of us today.
>
>According to my email's author, if we listen to Washington, those of us
>still around who were children during the '40s, '50s and '60s probably
>should be dead. Nonetheless, there are 58 million of us born in 1945 or
>earlier who are still kicking. Our parents allowed us to sleep in cribs
>beautified with lead-based paint. They drove us around in cars that had
>neither seatbelts nor airbags. They permitted us to ride our bicycles
>without helmets, just as adults rode motorcycles without helmets. And,
>horror of horrors, there were no childproof medicine bottles that, by
>the way, are sometimes so difficult to open that some people summon
>their children to open them.
>
>The fact that these safety edicts saved some lives and prevented some
>injuries doesn't provide justification for them anymore than mandating
>that, because some Americans have headaches, aspirin be put in the water
>supply.
>
>In a free society, government has the responsibility of protecting us
>from others, but not from ourselves. Before government got into the
>business of protecting us from ourselves, we did have a greater measure
>of protection from others. Yesteryear's children rode their bikes or
>walked to a friend's house, knocked on the door and let themselves in.
>Many families didn't lock doors until the last family member was home
>for the evening, and they did that in poor neighborhoods like the one I
>grew up in.
>
>Yesteryear, when we went off to school, parents might have worried about
>our crossing streets safely. Today's parents have a different set of
>worries, such as whether their child will be shot, stabbed, robbed,
>raped or given drugs in school. During the pre-1960 years,
>neighborhoods -- including poor neighborhoods -- were safe enough for
>women to walk the streets after dark. In fact, in places like Harlem,
>N.Y., hot, humid nights saw children and adults sleeping on fire escapes
>and rooftops. Doing the same today might lead to arrest for attempted
>suicide.
>
>Speaking of crime, if children did have a scrape with the law, our
>parents sided with the police.
>
>Don't you wonder how so many Americans made it without today's
>oppressive, caring, nanny government?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Wendy Marsden]

JG > wrote:

> If someone says food stamps are absolutely necessary for poor people's
> survival, I wonder how America's millions of poor immigrants made it.

They didn't all. Many of them starved to death. Have you read Angela's
Ashes? Several of the authors siblings died of malnutrition.

> Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our history.

You missed something. There was mass starvation at several points that I
can recall. Some of those were at war time - Valley Forge in the winter
in the 1770s, Andersonville, GA in the 1860s (where 13,000 people died in
16 months). There was also mass starvation of native Americans - Trail of
Tears of the Cherokee and the persecution of the Souix come to mind.

Having read quite a lot of what you've written, I've come to the
conclusion that you are narrow minded with no idea of how poor your
education is.

Wendy

[CBI]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our history.
>
> You missed something. There was mass starvation at several points that I
> can recall.

Ever read The Grapes of Wrath?
The Jungle?

--
CBI, MD

[JG]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...

> JG > wrote:

> > If someone says food stamps are absolutely necessary for poor
people's
> > survival, I wonder how America's millions of poor immigrants made
it.

> They didn't all. Many of them starved to death. Have you read
Angela's
> Ashes? Several of the authors siblings died of malnutrition.

People make choices, and sometimes those choices have bad consequences.
That's life. Frank McCourt's father was an alcoholic who impoverished
his family, so I think it's fair to say it was he, not "society," that
(indirectly) killed some of his kids. (BTW, Frank McCourt is a great
example of an individual motivated by adversity. Often "that which
doesn't kill us" DOES serve to "make us stronger." Too bad so many
parents these days go to ridiculous [occasionally even illegal and/or
unethical] extremes in their attempts to remove *all* adversity from
their kids' lives.)

> > Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our
history.

> You missed something. There was mass starvation at several points
that I
> can recall. Some of those were at war time - Valley Forge in the
winter
> in the 1770s,

The winter of 1778-9, to be precise. Again, choices. The soldiers
could have eaten the dead (of starvation) horses. (Sadly, their
inaction undoubtedly caused *more* deaths; failure to dispose of the
horse carcasses resulted in widespread disease.) Exposure to the harsh
elements also played a significant role.

Andersonville, GA in the 1860s (where 13,000 people died in
> 16 months).

....many of disease(s) caused by contaminated water supplies. Regardless
of whether by disease or starvation, the Union soldiers who died at
Andersonville were essentially *murdered*. Williams believes that in a
free society most individuals (those not genuinely disabled) can avert
their own starvation; those held prisoner at Andersonville were hardly
free.

There was also mass starvation of native Americans - Trail of
> Tears of the Cherokee and the persecution of the Souix come to mind.

The forced displacement of the Cherokee and their treatment at the hands
of the US government during frelocation marches were deplorable, as was
the treatment of the Dakota/Lakota/Nakota. (Jeez, Wendy, I'm surprised
someone with such apparently liberal views would use the insulting term
"Sioux.") Again, the circumstances (i.e., starvation) of these groups
were beyond their control.

Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
re:Valley Forge.) Too funny...

> Having read quite a lot of what you've written, I've come to the
> conclusion that you are narrow minded with no idea of how poor your
> education is.

You do know, don't you, that the comments to which you responded were
written by Walter Williams, not I? (I agree with them, however.) I've
come to the conclusion that your education in American history was
rather deficient...

[Roger Schlafly]

"JG" > wrote
> Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
> McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
> instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"!

So are all the other cases of mass starvation in the last 100 years.

[PF Riley]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:16:09 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
>
>The winter of 1778-9, to be precise. Again, choices. The soldiers
>could have eaten the dead (of starvation) horses. (Sadly, their
>inaction undoubtedly caused *more* deaths; failure to dispose of the
>horse carcasses resulted in widespread disease.) Exposure to the harsh
>elements also played a significant role.

Ah, I see. We don't need no stinkin' food stamps. Let them eat their
dead animals if they're so damn hungry!

>Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
>McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
>instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
>re:Valley Forge.) Too funny...

Indeed. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

Good thing the government now tries to avoid that by issuing food
stamps. So what's your point? You claim that either starvation isn't a
problem, or, if it is, it's the government's fault.

PF

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> stamps. So what's your point? You claim that either starvation isn't a
> problem, or, if it is, it's the government's fault.

She's right.

[JG]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Schlafly > wrote:
> > "JG" > wrote

> >> Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
> >> McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration
are
> >> instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"!

> > So are all the other cases of mass starvation in the last 100 years.

> And so you are against feeding programs by the Government?

Damn right!

"Feeding" and other welfare programs foster dependency and discourage
self-reliance. They also hinder private programs, which have, and can,
do a much better job.

See:
"A Happy Anniversary for Welfare Reform?", Lisa E. Oliphant,
http://cato.org/dailys/08-22-00.html

"Civil Society to the Rescue," Michael Tanner,
http://cato.org/dailys/7-01-97.html

"WELFARE AND THE CULTURE OF POVERTY," William A. Niskanen,
http://cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html

JG

The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make
things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things
worse. The black family--which survived slavery, discrimination,
poverty, wars and depressions--began to come apart as the federal
government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help."
--Thomas Sowell

[PF Riley]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:13:48 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:16:09 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
>
>> >Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
>> >McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration
>> >are
>> >instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
>> >re:Valley Forge.) Too funny...
>
>> Indeed. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!
>
>"Let them eat buns"? <g>
>
>Ah, Riley, yet another knee-jerk response! ...how predictable... Are
>you aware that at the time Marie-Therese allegedly uttered these words,
>the French government was meddling in the bread market? Bakers were
>operating under a goofy law that required them to sell their more
>expensive bread (brioche) at the same price as their cheapest bread if
>and when they ran out of the cheap stuff. As such, Marie-Therese's
>comment was hardly flippant; indeed, it was likely a call for
>enforcement of the law.

Yes, I am well aware of the bread-pricing laws and the fact that the
statement has been misattributed and misunderstood. This is all
irrelevant. I was using the quotation in the sense in which it is
usually misinterpreted since such interpretation does apply here. Or
should I have perhaps said, "Qu'ils mangent des chevaux?"

And by the way, the only correct answer to the question of who
actually said it is: "Not Marie-Antoinette."

>> Good thing the government now tries to avoid that by issuing food
>> stamps. So what's your point? You claim that either starvation isn't a
>> problem, or, if it is, it's the government's fault.
>
>Starvation doesn't have to be a "problem"; the private sector can, and
>has, seen that hungry (starvation is an exaggeration) persons are fed.
>You know what *might* really be blamed on the gubmnt? Obesity amongst
>the poor. See http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/testimony-040303.pdf

So it seems you still can't make up your mind whether or not
government causes starvation. First you claim it does, then turn
around and cite an article claiming that starvation was a big problem
back in 1967, and that the government would have nothing to do with
these people, denying them welfare. (Now then where was your "private
sector?" And is this what you were referring to when you said that
kids "had it better in the '50s and '60s?") But the article then
claims that the government then overcompensated and has caused
obesity.

So I must thank you for countering Wendy's examples of starvation in
the U.S. which you claim to have been caused by governing bodies with
your own example of starvation initially ignored by the government
then cured by government programs.

So which is it? Does the government make people go hungry or make them
fat?

PF

[Wendy Marsden]

JG > wrote:

> Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
> McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
> instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
> re:Valley Forge.) Too funny...

Nice observation. I submit that the incidents of mass starvation where
the government was NOT involved don't make it far enough into the public
consciousness for me to pull out of my head in a post.

I particularly liked how you write off the death of immigrant children as
their father's fault for not being a better father. But, wasn't that the
basic premise of this thread, denying that people died before the safety
nets? Now you're telling me that the ones that died didn't count?

Here's another example of immigrent children's deaths. My three great
aunts died at the turn of the century in Hamtramack from food
poisoning. (At least that's what I think it was, they called it "summer
complaint".) My great-grandfather always, always bitterly blamed being
Jewish as the doctor didn't come to their house until it was too late for
Sadie, Minnie and Rose. No safety net there. Can you imagine losing your
3, 6 and 10 year old daughters? My grandmother was born after her sisters
all died and grew up an only daughter with three ghosts populating her
family. I assure you, these people didn't lose their children through
Greek-type tragic flaws.

Wendy, whose children can get in to see doctors when they need it

[abacus]

"JG" > wrote in message >...
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > JG > wrote:
>
> Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
> McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
> instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
> re:Valley Forge.) Too funny...
>
Just a quick morsel of food for thought. If starvation is usually
caused by the government, doesn't that imply that government
involvement will usually be required to end it?

[Roger Schlafly]

"abacus" > wrote
> Just a quick morsel of food for thought. If starvation is usually
> caused by the government, doesn't that imply that government
> involvement will usually be required to end it?

The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by
gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people.
So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those
policies that involve deliberately starving people.

[Wendy Marsden]

Roger Schlafly > wrote:
> The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by
> gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people.
> So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those
> policies that involve deliberately starving people.

Hang on, I cited a few examples from the 18th and 19th centuries that were
caused by governmental actions, but that doesn't mean ALL mass starvations
were caused by the government everywhere.

Let's see, the 20th Century had the creation of the great dust bowl where
crops failed from over-farming and drought. There was also a few bouts of
pestilence (ever hear of a chestnut or an elm? Food crops got eaten,
too.) *MY* government didn't have the power to prevent these things.

There were mass migrations of immigrants to the cities (like my
great-grandparents) and there was also a HUGE population of share-croppers
and migrant farm-workers doing the agricultural work previously done by
slaves (slaves were at least supplied with food even if not freedom or
money.) I'd say the government ALLOWED these policies, but I don't think
they created the hunger.

There was a world wide epidemic of flu that killed predominantly people
in their highest earning years. It's a HUGE reach to say the Spanish flu
was caused by the Government, although sending the servicemen overseas in
WW1 probably aided in its spread.

Oh, and how about a Great Depression where people lost their jobs and
farms and couldn't buy food? I don't think you can honestly say that
was caused by governmental policies, unless you're referring to the
precursor of the SEC as a governmental agency and think the world-wide
economy is controllable.

I imagine you sitting there saying, "well, I'm not hungry and I don't know
anyone else who is hungry so hunger must not exist."

I find you puzzling - is this really how you think or are you just
trolling?

Wendy

[PF Riley]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:40:26 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>> The only mass starvations of the 20th century were caused by
>> gubmnt actions that blocked food from getting to the people.
>> So yes, sometimes gubmnt involved is needed to end those
>> policies that involve deliberately starving people.
>
>Hang on, I cited a few examples from the 18th and 19th centuries that were
>caused by governmental actions, but that doesn't mean ALL mass starvations
>were caused by the government everywhere.

Roger claims to have a doctorate in mathematics yet he has difficulty
with the most basic principles of logic.

>I find you puzzling - is this really how you think or are you just
>trolling?

I ask myself that about him practically every time I read one of his
posts.

PF

[Wendy Marsden]

Roger Schlafly > wrote:

> Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
> point here.

People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
to survive. And people without those benefits died.

Wendy

[Roger Schlafly]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote
> > Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
> > point here.
> People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
> to survive. And people without those benefits died.

And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918 flu??!
You are not making any sense.

[abacus]

Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
> Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>
> > Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
> > point here.
>
> People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
> to survive. And people without those benefits died.
>
> Wendy

This is an interesting conversation. I think that a governmental
policy of redistribution of wealth (which is what welfare benefits
are) does allow more people to survive harsh economic times - which
are often the result of governmental policies in the first place. In
addition, the current system of providing welfare benefits without
requiring the recipients to work for them but only to establish their
*need* results in more *needy* people because it becomes a lifestyle
choice for some, and for others it becomes a backup that they can rely
on rather than relying on themselves.

Safety edicts also save lives. But the cost of such measures is
usually some aspect of our freedom. I'm not convinced that many of the
safety measures currently being legally mandated (such as carseats,
bicycle helmets, etc.) are sufficiently beneficial to justify their
being required by law rather than optional.

Lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would also save lives, but we don't
generally consider the cost of such a measure to be worth the price of
such a limitation. On the other hand, we do consider speed limits and
various other traffic regulations to be reasonable limitations on
individual freedom in order to reduce accidents and their resulting
damage to an acceptable level. At what point - how many lives - does
the imposition of such measures and the resulting reduction in
individual freedom become acceptable?

I don't what the right answer is, but you've all provided me with some
food for thought. Thanks.

[Roger Schlafly]

"abacus" > wrote
> This is an interesting conversation. I think that a governmental
> policy of redistribution of wealth (which is what welfare benefits
> are) does allow more people to survive harsh economic times - which
> are often the result of governmental policies in the first place.

The track record is mixed. Most of the FDR New Deal policies
of the 1930s ended up making the Depression worse.

> Safety edicts also save lives. But the cost of such measures is
> usually some aspect of our freedom. I'm not convinced that many of the
> safety measures currently being legally mandated (such as carseats,
> bicycle helmets, etc.) are sufficiently beneficial to justify their
> being required by law rather than optional.

Yes. Some safety edicts are so good that no one questions them,
but those you mention are debatable.

> Lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would also save lives, but we don't
> generally consider the cost of such a measure to be worth the price of
> such a limitation. On the other hand, we do consider speed limits and
> various other traffic regulations to be reasonable limitations on
> individual freedom in order to reduce accidents and their resulting
> damage to an acceptable level. At what point - how many lives - does ...

For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed
limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been
dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase
in the accident rate attributable to the increase.

[Wendy Marsden]

Roger Schlafly > wrote:
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote
>> > Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of your
>> > point here.
>> People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the government -
>> to survive. And people without those benefits died.

> And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918 flu??!
> You are not making any sense.

As an example of something causing starvation that wasn't caused by the
government. You have to extrapolate a bit: the 1918 flu was remarkable in
how many young and strong men it killed. That left families without their
earning power and subsequently one can presume that they went hungry. I'm
not claiming it was "mass starvation", but I'd bet my bottom dollar that
there was sporadic starvation as a result.

Wendy

[Wendy Marsden]

Roger Schlafly > wrote:

> For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed
> limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been
> dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase
> in the accident rate attributable to the increase.

No increase in the OVERALL accident rate, but more elderly are dying and
less healthy young men are dying on the interstate. The problem appears
to be one of disparity of speed. An old fogey going 50 is more likely to
be rear-ended and killed now that traffic is going 80 around them.

Wendy

[Roger Schlafly]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote
> > And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918 flu??!
> > You are not making any sense.
> As an example of something causing starvation that wasn't caused by the
> government. You have to extrapolate a bit: the 1918 flu was remarkable in
> how many young and strong men it killed. That left families without their
> earning power and subsequently one can presume that they went hungry. I'm
> not claiming it was "mass starvation", but I'd bet my bottom dollar that
> there was sporadic starvation as a result.

There was a Pacific island country that heard of the 1918 flu, and
banned all ships from entering its port for a year or until the flu passed.
It completely escaped the 1918 flu. Maybe that's an example of a
gubmnt safety action that saved lives.

[JG]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...

> Roger Schlafly > wrote:

> > "Wendy Marsden" > wrote

> >> > Migration, yes. Flu, yes. Unemployment, yes. I've lost track of
your
> >> > point here.
> >> People need the safety edicts - the welfare system run by the
government -
> >> to survive. And people without those benefits died.

> > And for you examples, you give historical events like the 1918
flu??!
> > You are not making any sense.

> As an example of something causing starvation that wasn't caused by
the
> government. You have to extrapolate a bit: the 1918 flu was
remarkable in
> how many young and strong men it killed. That left families without
their
> earning power and subsequently one can presume that they went hungry.

That's a mighty big presumption. Communities--churches,
neighbors--tended to look out for "their own." Besides, deaths caused
by the flu left a wide-open job market.

I'm
> not claiming it was "mass starvation", but I'd bet my bottom dollar
that
> there was sporadic starvation as a result.

It's past time to establish some definitions. There's *hunger* and then
there's true *starvation*. I think most would classify as simply hunger
that which you've been repeatedly referring to as starvation (and "mass
starvation").

From WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University:

starvation
n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential
nutrients over a prolonged period [syn: famishment]

Genuine starvation is very rare; indeed, in US history, I'd say the only
true instances of "mass" starvation occurred as a consequence of
government policies/agents (as already discussed) or, on a considerably
smaller scale, by an absolute inability to escape climatic conditions
(e.g., the Donner Party), by force (e.g., someone held captive against
his/her will), or by choice (e.g., by elderly persons seeking to hasten
their deaths). Hunger (and malnutrition), on the other hand, have
always been present, at times (e.g., the Great Depression/Dust Bowl era)
simply more prevalent. Hunger--the need for sustenance--is a great
motivator; witness the number of hungry who, throughout history, have
chosen to relocate in efforts to escape it (about 25% of the population
in some hard-hit regions during the "dust bowl" period, IIRC). My own
great-grandfather emigrated from County Clare in the 1846 to escape the
Irish potato famine; three of his brothers also left, heading separately
to Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

JG

[JG]

"Naomi Pardue" > wrote in message
...

> >People who have to rely on food stamps shouldn't have horses. :-)

> They should eat their cars!

Hehehe... Perhaps they should consider selling (or doing without) all
"non-necessities," e.g., second cars, cable/satellite subscriptions, DVD
players, second (and 3rd, 4th, 5th?) television sets, home theater
equipment, cell phones, enhanced phone services (caller ID, call
forwarding, answering services), large pets... and using the
proceeds/savings to buy food.

JG

[JG]

"CBI" > wrote in message
...

> Ever read The Grapes of Wrath?
> The Jungle?

Citing fiction? Way to go, Chris! <g>

[JG]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...

[...]

> Here's another example of immigrent children's deaths.

Why is their being immigrants relevant?

My three great
> aunts died at the turn of the century in Hamtramack from food
> poisoning. (At least that's what I think it was, they called it
"summer
> complaint".) My great-grandfather always, always bitterly blamed
being
> Jewish as the doctor didn't come to their house until it was too late
for
> Sadie, Minnie and Rose. No safety net there.

What kind of "safety net" could/would have (possibly) prevented their
deaths? I don't see your point.

Can you imagine losing your
> 3, 6 and 10 year old daughters? My grandmother was born after her
sisters
> all died and grew up an only daughter with three ghosts populating her
> family. I assure you, these people didn't lose their children through
> Greek-type tragic flaws.

Very similar story in my family: My mom's older sister died at 3 (in
1923) from septicemia. Her father (my grandfather) had closed a car
door on her thumb. My mom grew up an only child as well.

JG

[JG]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...

> There was a Pacific island country that heard of the 1918 flu, and
> banned all ships from entering its port for a year or until the flu
passed.
> It completely escaped the 1918 flu. Maybe that's an example of a
> gubmnt safety action that saved lives.

Tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...t ock...waiting for Utz
to show up and suggest that this is analogous to mandatory
vaccination...tick...tock...tick...

[Wendy Marsden]

JG > wrote:
> "CBI" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Ever read The Grapes of Wrath?
>> The Jungle?

> Citing fiction? Way to go, Chris! <g>

If I recall my high school humanities course correctly (and I might
not) Upton Sinclair was a muckracker/journalist who researched the
meat-packing industry before writing the Jungle. It was partially
responsible for the revisions of meat-packing rules (by the
Government). Yes, the immigrant family depicted was fictionalized, but
the situations were drawn from reality. Same deal with Grapes of
Wrath. They're windows into a world that we don't see from our own eyes.

Wendy

[Wendy Marsden]

JG > wrote:
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
>> My three great
>> aunts died at the turn of the century in Hamtramack from food
>> poisoning.

> What kind of "safety net" could/would have (possibly) prevented their
> deaths? I don't see your point.

Better meat-packing plant standards, for one thing. Access to health care
(even if poor) for another. They still might have died, but we'll never
know because they didn't have clean food or access to doctors.

Being immigrants makes them less likely to have access to whatever
societal supports *were* in place, that tended to be based on people
having known you all your life and your physical location. In other
words, "Joe's kid who lives on the old Colson farm" will get neighborly
help even from people who don't know one thing more about the guy than
that (not even his name) but "the new people who don't talk our language
who came from God-knows-where" aren't going to get the same consideration.

My great-grandparents were neither poor nor stupid, but they had less
access to health care than even poor, stupid immigrants have today.

Wendy

[Wendy Marsden]

JG > wrote:
> It's past time to establish some definitions. There's *hunger* and then
> there's true *starvation*. I think most would classify as simply hunger
> that which you've been repeatedly referring to as starvation (and "mass
> starvation").

Well, when I referred to mass starvation I meant malnutrition to the point
where death resulted from opportunistic diseases. Of course, you can say
they died of heart failure if you prefer.

The line between hunger, malnutrition and starvation is pretty slim in a
kid. Kids are also known for not having the economic ability to migrate
in search of better parents. So are we back to saying that the only kids
who starved are ones that don't count for some reason? (Like, because you
haven't heard their names and don't care about them?)

Wendy

[Roger Schlafly]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote
> Well, when I referred to mass starvation I meant malnutrition to the point
> where death resulted from opportunistic diseases.

When and where? You have to look pretty hard to find that anywhere
in the world today, or in recent history.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote
> My great-grandparents were neither poor nor stupid, but they had less
> access to health care than even poor, stupid immigrants have today.

I very much doubt that. Even penniless illegal aliens in the US are
able to get excellent emergency room treatment, and never pay the
bill. He can get lots of treatments that were just not available to
your great-grandparents.

[Wendy Marsden]

Roger Schlafly > wrote:
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote
>> Well, when I referred to mass starvation I meant malnutrition to the point
>> where death resulted from opportunistic diseases.

> When and where? You have to look pretty hard to find that anywhere
> in the world today, or in recent history.

It's not hard for *me* to find hunger, but I imagine that those gigantic
blinders you wear must make it a bit difficult for you.

Wendy

[Jeff Utz]

Personally, I am very grateful that the government has all the safety laws.
Each year, something like 40,000 people get killed in car crashes. That
number has been going down even though the population has been going up.
They require that tyres meet certain standards, cars get inspected at
certain intervals, cars meet safety standards, drunks can drive while drunk,
etc.

I am very grateful that the federal government requires drugs to meet
certain standards of efficacy and purity before they can be sold as
prescription drugs. And people who practice medicine actually be licensed.

I am very grateful that the federal government requires that airplanes be
well-maintained before they are allowed to take off.

I am grateful that the building code and National Electrical Code help
ensure that the buildings we live and work in won't be the cause of our
death.

There is no way to eliminate all injuries. Thanks to the work of our elected
representatives and the good people who work for various government
agencies, many thousands of lives are saved each year.

Jeff

[abacus]

Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
> Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>
> > For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed
> > limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been
> > dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase
> > in the accident rate attributable to the increase.
>
> No increase in the OVERALL accident rate, but more elderly are dying and
> less healthy young men are dying on the interstate. The problem appears
> to be one of disparity of speed. An old fogey going 50 is more likely to
> be rear-ended and killed now that traffic is going 80 around them.
>
> Wendy


This is an interesting breakdown if true. I don't agree with your
analysis as to cause though. I would think that young men would be
more likely to be killed going 80 rather than 55 so that doesn't
explain the disparity. I also doubt that they are that much more
likely to survive the rear-end collision than the old fogeys are, but
at any rate you didn't provide any breakdown as to type of accident.
My suspicion would be that it relates more to the change in overall
demographics of our society - i.e. the aging baby boomers.

[Wendy Marsden]

abacus > wrote:
> Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
>> Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>>
>> > For most the 1970s-1990s we were told that the 55 mph US speed
>> > limit was saving lives. But now that the national speed limit has been
>> > dropped and many states have higher limits, there has been no increase
>> > in the accident rate attributable to the increase.
>>
>> No increase in the OVERALL accident rate, but more elderly are dying and
>> less healthy young men are dying on the interstate. The problem appears
>> to be one of disparity of speed. An old fogey going 50 is more likely to
>> be rear-ended and killed now that traffic is going 80 around them.
>>
>> Wendy


> This is an interesting breakdown if true. I don't agree with your
> analysis as to cause though. I would think that young men would be
> more likely to be killed going 80 rather than 55 so that doesn't
> explain the disparity. I also doubt that they are that much more
> likely to survive the rear-end collision than the old fogeys are, but
> at any rate you didn't provide any breakdown as to type of accident.
> My suspicion would be that it relates more to the change in overall
> demographics of our society - i.e. the aging baby boomers.

You have some good points. I'm sorry I don't have a cite. My memory is
that the increased mortality rate amongst old folks tracked with higher
speeds. It made sense to me at the time that the highway becomes more
dangerous if some people are going 80 while others are at 55. But I don't
know why they old fogies aren't killing the speeders.

Wendy

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote
> > My great-grandparents were neither poor nor stupid, but they had less
> > access to health care than even poor, stupid immigrants have today.
>
> I very much doubt that. Even penniless illegal aliens in the US are
> able to get excellent emergency room treatment,

Emergency room treatment might be excellent, but it is extremely expensive
compared to seeing a private doc in his office and offer really bad primary
care, like missed vaccinations and missed conditions, like failure to
thrive, scholiosis and other conditions that primary care docs would pick
up.

> and never pay the
> bill.

Perhaps because they work for wages that are so low that American workers
would not do the jobs.

> He can get lots of treatments that were just not available to
> your great-grandparents.

Perhaps because they did not have antibiotics before 1940?

Jeff

[Wendy Marsden]

JG > wrote:

> The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas
> is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
> --H.L. Mencken

My favorite H.L. Mencken quote is "nobody ever lost money underestimating
the stupidity of the American public."

Good thing we have safety edicts to shield them.

Wendy

[Jeff Utz]

"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Personally, I am very grateful that the government has all the safety
> laws.
> > Each year, something like 40,000 people get killed in car crashes.
> That
> > number has been going down even though the population has been going
> up.
> > They require that tyres meet certain standards, cars get inspected at
> > certain intervals, cars meet safety standards...
>
> Colorado did away its safety inspection requirement years ago; the only
> periodic inspection now mandated is for emissions. I haven't seen any
> assessment as to whether the accident rate went up after the
> vehicle-safety inspections were halted.
>
> >...drunks can drive while drunk,
>
> Not here in Colorado! (Though of course some do...)
> Just what is it with you and the word "not," Jeff?
>
> > I am very grateful that the federal government requires drugs to meet
> > certain standards of efficacy and purity before they can be sold as
> > prescription drugs.
>
> How many people, do you imagine, have died while awaiting approval of a
> drug/device that likely would have saved their lives?

Lots. But if you just go and license something without proof that it works,
you would have a situation like we do with food supplements. We have no idea
what works and what doesn't work.

A good example is pediatric cancers. By careful study of what works and what
doesn't work, the death rate from pediatric cancers (overall) is about
25-30% vs about 95% when I was in diapers.

> And people who practice medicine actually be licensed.
>
> Yeah, that's a sure-fire way of keeping the competition for health
> care/medical dollars down...

Really? That is a way (not a great way) of making sure that people who
practice medicine meet certain standards of care.

> > I am very grateful that the federal government requires that airplanes
> be
> > well-maintained before they are allowed to take off.
>
> Yeah, without those mandates, who knows what airlines would do? I mean,
> like, ya know, what's the incentive to have as-safe-as-possible planes?
> (Hmmm... Making a profit? Staying in business? Keeping ahead of the
> competition? ....Hmmm)

What is the mandate to have safe taxis? Not much for the taxi drivers.

I see the mandate for having safe planes, but not the one for having safe as
possible planes. Part of safe planes is real security on the ground. And, on
the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the security was not that great (I still
don't think it is).

> > I am grateful that the building code and National Electrical Code help
> > ensure that the buildings we live and work in won't be the cause of
> our
> > death.
>
> Why do you think that builders (*anyone* in your mind, apparently)
> won't/wouldn't "do the right thing" unless they're FORCED to by various
> laws and regulations???

The fact that they try to get around those regulations. Look at what is
happening in NYC now with the new WTC building project. They are trying not
to get the city code applied to the buildings.

> Businesses operate to make a buck--to be
> profitable to the owners--agreed? Why, then, would they (owners)
> intentionally do anything that would lessen potential profits, let alone
> leave them open to trouble (e.g., enormous judgments against them)?

To save a buck by not having emergency exits that are as wide as they should
be or by not having as many sprinklers in. Ever hear of insurance that pays
for fires and such? You may want to look up the history of garment factory
fires in NYC at the turn of the 20th century.

> > There is no way to eliminate all injuries. Thanks to the work of our
> elected
> > representatives and the good people who work for various government
> > agencies, many thousands of lives are saved each year.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahaha...
> "The good people <bwahahahahaha....stop....please!...you're killing
> me!!> who work <holding sides, choking back tears> for various
> government agencies"? Your "good people" (bureaucrats and assorted
> flunkies) cost us--waste--billions of dollars a year, Jeff.

They protect the food supply, help ensure safe buildings and cars, ensure
safe and effective drugs, etc.

The government is no example of effiecency. But I don't see a better way.

> The
> (non)return on our "investment" is ridiculous. You can't
> verify/substantiate that the "many thousands of lives...saved each year"
> are attributable to government intervention AT ALL.

Really? What was the mandate for putting airbags in all cars? What was the
mandate for inspecting planes? What is the mandate for fire-security in
buildings? What is the mandate for ensuring that drugs meet certain purity
requirements? That food meet certain requirements? How about the requirement
that certain safety requirements be met at nuclear power plants?

> We're an over-regulated country, Jeff.

In some ways we are overregulated. But I would take a country with too many
regulations than one without any regulations, like Liberia or many other
African or South American countries.

> Know what happens--what some of
> the consequences are--of over-regulation? For one thing, regulation is
> expensive; time IS money, and the time/money spent complying with petty
> regulations, let alone the time/money spent demonstrating compliance,
> adds up.

And the effects of not being compliant add up too. Kids burned in fires,
people dying in hospitals, kids getting asthma, etc.

> Can you honestly say that the benefit invariably exceeds the
> cost?

No. Nor have I ever suggested that every regulation is a good one. Many are
bad.

>Do you honestly think that the burdens imposed by regulation
> haven't stifled competition, i.e, haven't dissuaded persons from
> entering various markets, or haven't hampered innovation and progress
> for those already in a market?

When properly imposed (e.g., the emissions from the tailpipes or smoke
staacks must not exceeed certain values), they can acheive their goals and
encourage innovation and progress.

> Have you considered, at all, who pays
> for the costs of regulation (not just the direct expenses of the
> regulators, but the compliance/verification costs of businesses
> subjected to numerous regulations)? *Consumers*, that's who!

Yes, that is why the benefits of regulations must be weighed against their
costs. One example is that gasoline content is regulated by almost each
state, often with different requirements in different parts of states. So,
the availability of gasoline in a particular region often does not meet
demand (even when, overall, there is enough gas), so gas prices go up. And
even when there is enough gas, it still costs refiners lots of money to make
different types of gasoline, costs that are passed on to consumers.

> For
> another thing, over-regulation (tantamount to micromanaging people's
> lives) trivializes ALL regulations. Unless *every* regulation/rule is
> strictly enforced, people will come to disregard many of them (perhaps
> even "good" ones!). Because we're so over-regulated these days, there's
> often no realistic way of equitably monitoring compliance; overseers
> can't be everywhere at once. (A recent article in the CO Springs paper
> focused on restaurant inspections; it turns out a year could pass
> without some restaurants undergoing health inspections, while others
> were "hit" two or three times a year. On a much smaller scale, I
> recently had the opportunity to lambaste our development's HOA. I
> received a form letter last month informing me that "dead trees have
> been noticed on your property" [the HOA has a group of "tree monitors,"
> most, if not all, retired older guys "trained" by the state forestry
> service] and that I had 30 days in which to have them removed, or they'd
> take care of them and bill me. Talk about being p-o'ed! I'd spent >
> $2K in March to have the dead and near-dead trees on the lot cut down,
> all the while having to look out at the numerous dead ones [friggin'
> mistletoe/pine beetles/drought!] next door. I surmised what probably
> happened: A tree monitor had driven by, seen some dead trees, and
> simply couldn't tell, form the road, on whose property they were. [Our
> covenants prohibit fences between the front of a house and the road.] I
> called the HOA office the next morning and chewed out the guy who
> answered, asking him what the heck was going on. It turns out they'd
> decided, given the number of dead trees in the development, that they'd
> simply send out letters to *everyone* who lived in the especially
> hard-hit sections [and later apologize to conscientious, irate owners
> who didn't need to be threatened?]. I gave him a piece of unsolicited
> advice before hanging up: If the HOA was ever again going to resort to
> such a tactic--sending letters to everyone, whether warranted or
> not--that they at least add a closing sentence stating something to the
> effect that "If you've already taken care of this problem, thank you for
> your cooperation."

An example of bad enforcement.

> I'm very, very sorry that you have such little faith in your fellow
> citizens, Jeff. You apparently don't think anyone (except doctors,
> perhaps?) will behave ethically ("properly") unless they're forced to do
> so by (a) government, i.e., that force--the threat of, and ability to
> use, punishment--is all that people understand and respond to.

Nope. But do you really think electic companies will reduce their emissions
or people would have catalytic convertors on their cars if they were not
required? Do you really think people would stop advertising useless
nutritional supplements if the FTC didn't step in? Do you really think that
chemical companies would have stopped illegal dumping if it were not
illegal? Do you really think all landlords would follow building codes
unless it were the law and they could be stopped? Do you really think that
restaurants would follow safe food-handling practices as well as they do if
it were not the law? Do you really think that gas stations would not try to
pass off regular gas as high test more often if they were not regulated or
grocery stores fix their scales (so they read a higher weight) if they were
not as clearly enforced? And do you really think people would honestly
report their income for taxes if there were not penalties for cheating? Do
you think that businesses' financial reports would be more accurate and
insider trading would stop if businesses were left on their own? Do you
really think people would pay for cable TV if it were not illegal to steal
it?

Government regulations are costly. I think it would be more costly to NOT
have them.

Jeff

> JG
>
> The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas
> is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
> --H.L. Mencken
>
>

[Roger Schlafly]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote
> >> Well, when I referred to mass starvation I meant malnutrition to the
point
> >> where death resulted from opportunistic diseases.
> > When and where? You have to look pretty hard to find that anywhere
> > in the world today, or in recent history.
> It's not hard for *me* to find hunger, ...

Yeah, I was hungry just this morning. If you find a better example than
the 1918 flu, post it.

[abacus]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message >...
> The difference in speed kills. Drivers are much more likely to get in a
> wreck if the cars around them are going a different speed than they are. If
> everyone wear capable of safely driving 85 and drove 85, the roads would be
> safer than with some people driving 75, some 65 and some 45, as it is now.
>
> Jeff

But, as Wendy pointed out, the accident rate didn't go up when the 55
mph universal speed limit was lifted. It was the demographics of who
was likely to be killed that changed. Those facts don't fit with your
analysis above.

[PF Riley]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 04:49:28 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
>
>> There was a Pacific island country that heard of the 1918 flu, and
>> banned all ships from entering its port for a year or until the flu
>> passed.
>> It completely escaped the 1918 flu. Maybe that's an example of a
>> gubmnt safety action that saved lives.
>
>Tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...t ock...waiting for Utz
>to show up and suggest that this is analogous to mandatory
>vaccination...tick...tock...tick...

Actually, it's an example of an action taken by a government in the
interest of public health, which you generally complain about,
claiming that federal public health agencies should be abolished.

PF

[PF Riley]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:42:07 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I am grateful that the building code and National Electrical Code help
>> ensure that the buildings we live and work in won't be the cause of
>> our death.
>
>Why do you think that builders (*anyone* in your mind, apparently)
>won't/wouldn't "do the right thing" unless they're FORCED to by various
>laws and regulations??? Businesses operate to make a buck--to be
>profitable to the owners--agreed? Why, then, would they (owners)
>intentionally do anything that would lessen potential profits, let alone
>leave them open to trouble (e.g., enormous judgments against them)?

Gee, that's the same question I asked Roger when he claimed that the
manufacturer of Rotashield bribed FDA/CDC officials to get the vaccine
approved even though they "knew" it would cause intussusception, yet
he never answered me. Perhaps you could?

>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahaha...
>"The good people <bwahahahahaha....stop....please!...you're killing
>me!!> who work <holding sides, choking back tears> for various
>government agencies"?

This is how I feel when you go on about how private industry would be
so darn ethical and focus on honesty and safety first if there were no
government regulations.

>I'm very, very sorry that you have such little faith in your fellow
>citizens, Jeff. You apparently don't think anyone (except doctors,
>perhaps?) will behave ethically ("properly") unless they're forced to do
>so by (a) government, i.e., that force--the threat of, and ability to
>use, punishment--is all that people understand and respond to.

And I am surprised that you have so much faith in your fellow
citizens. A constant feature of human civilization throughout history
is that people lie, cheat, and steal. All the time. You can certainly
imagine that the big, established companies would try not to cheat or
lie too much (or at least get caught doing it) without regulations,
but there would be plenty of small businessmen making a living conning
people through various enterprises, and simply packing up and moving
on when discovered. As I have said before, regulations generally are
developed when their need becomes apparent.

Just curious: What do you think of baseball's infield fly rule?

PF

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> claiming that federal public health agencies should be abolished.

Who claims that?

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> Gee, that's the same question I asked Roger when he claimed that the
> manufacturer of Rotashield bribed FDA/CDC officials to get the vaccine
> approved even though they "knew" it would cause intussusception, yet
> he never answered me. Perhaps you could?

Find the claim, and I'd be happy to answer you.

[JG]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...

> "PF Riley" > wrote
> > claiming that federal public health agencies should be abolished.

> Who claims that?

I imagine he's referring to comments I've made regarding my belief that
the FDA should be abolished (I think *private*, independent
laboratories/testing facilities could perform the same functions more
efficiently) as well as the EPA (which, I suppose, can be classified as
a "public health" agency, even though its name would imply that
protecting the *environment*, not people, is its purpose).

I believe (as I've also previously stated) there is a limited role for
the CDC; there are benefits to having information (e.g., disease
incidence/tracking) centrally collected/stored/accessible.

JG

The ideal way to get rid of any infectious disease would be to shoot
instantly every person who comes down with it.
--H.L. Mencken ("The Library" in the The American Mercury, Mar 25,
p.379)

[Roger Schlafly]

"JG" > wrote
> > > claiming that federal public health agencies should be abolished.
> > Who claims that?
> I imagine he's referring to comments I've made regarding my belief that
> the FDA should be abolished (I think *private*, independent
> laboratories/testing facilities could perform the same functions more
> efficiently) as well as the EPA (which, I suppose, can be classified as
> a "public health" agency, even though its name would imply that
> protecting the *environment*, not people, is its purpose).

If you are including those agencies, then don't forget Health &
Human Services.

[Jeff Utz]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>...
> > The difference in speed kills. Drivers are much more likely to get in a
> > wreck if the cars around them are going a different speed than they are.
If
> > everyone wear capable of safely driving 85 and drove 85, the roads would
be
> > safer than with some people driving 75, some 65 and some 45, as it is
now.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> But, as Wendy pointed out, the accident rate didn't go up when the 55
> mph universal speed limit was lifted. It was the demographics of who
> was likely to be killed that changed. Those facts don't fit with your
> analysis above.

I cannot tell from here what happened. To tell, I would need to see the
stats and how the stats changed when speed limits changed. I suspect the
reason why more older people are dying in car crashes is because there are
more older people on the road and that older people are more likely to die
in a car crash than a younger person in a car crash of the same severity.
What segment of the population is dying more in crashes does not tell us
whether the speed limit change caused the changes. There are other things
changing as well, like the number of cars on the roads, the protection the
cars offer, and the drivers themselves. And the speed limit did not change
on all segments of the highways.

In addition, I think there are more older people on the roads who are too
sick to drive. There is a wonderful lady who lives across the street. She is
having problems with dizziness. On the way to the doctor, thankfully, she
hit the mailbox in front of her house and got the doctor's office to send a
car for her. She should not have been behind the wheel of the car AT ALL. (I
say thankfully, because if she got on the highway, instead of a mailbox, it
might have been a minivan full of kids or a schoolbus going to an amusement
park for church trip or a tree that didn't jump out of the way.) I believe
there are a lot more impaired older people driving who should not be behind
the wheel than say 20 years ago.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"JG" > wrote in message
...

(...)

> That's not saying much <g>; poor, stupid immigrants have access to all
> sorts of services--health, education--that many longtime residents are
> denied. Ask Roger what's happened in/to California!

I disagree. While anyone can get treated at an emergency department,
immigrants and other poor people get poor medical care. Outstanding
treatment in an emergency department is poor primary care.

Can you please give some examples where services that long-time residents
are denied? For example, where are immigrants allowed to go to school, but
US citizens not allowed? I know there are special programs, e.g., English as
a foriegn lanquage for immigrants, but where are US citizens denied services
that immigrants get? Where do immigrants get good quality health care, but
US citizens don't?

And do you really think immigrants are stupid? I think that they are very
smart if they leave their poor country for a better chance at education and
good living conditions for thier children, just like my great-great
grandfather, Johannes Utz did about 150 years ago.

And why do immigrants not deserve good health care and education? I realize
that money is an issue, but I think of good health care and education as an
investment, evne if the people are not yet US permanant residents.

All the best,

Jeff

Qual Health Res. 2003 May;13(5):689-702. Related Articles, Links


Legal, financial, and ethical ambiguities for Mexican American families:
caring for children with chronic conditions.

Rehm RS.

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA.

The author reports findings from a study about experiences of 17 Mexican
American families caring for children with serious chronic conditions.
Legal, financial, and ethical ambiguities arose when parents' desire to
provide necessary care for their children and providers' professional
commitment to offer this care conflicted with United States laws, including
welfare reform initiatives, requiring providers to determine eligibility
before providing care to immigrants and to report undocumented care seekers
to authorities. Families frequently felt intimidated because health care
systems are complex, and legal residency status often varied among family
members. Findings imply that official policy and education of family members
should aim to assure that children with chronic conditions receive needed
services without relying on providers to enforce immigration laws.

PMID: 12756688 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

J Urban Health. 2003 Mar;80(1):81-91. Related Articles, Links


Barriers to breast cancer screening for low-income Mexican and Dominican
women in New York City.

Garbers S, Jessop DJ, Foti H, Uribelarrea M, Chiasson MA.

Medical and Health Research Association of New York City, Inc, New York, NY
10013, USA.

The proportion of Mexican and Dominican women has increased rapidly in New
York City and in other urban areas, and breast cancer screening rates
continue to be lower for Latina women as a whole, but particularly for some
nationality subgroups. The current analysis explored the reasons why Mexican
and Dominican women from medically underserved communities in New York City
do not seek breast cancer screening. Data were collected through interviews
with 298 Mexican and Dominican women aged 40-88 years; the interviews
included an open-ended question on the barriers women face in seeking
screening. The three most commonly cited barriers were not taking care of
oneself (descuido) (52.3%), lack of information (49.3%), and fear (44.6%).
Women who had been screened cited fear, pain, or other personal barriers
more often, but women who had never had a mammogram cited cost or other
logistical barriers. Responses from Dominican and Mexican women were
significantly different, with Mexican women more often citing shame or
embarrassment and Dominican women more often citing fear. The dependent
variable, barriers to screening, was grouped into major categories. When
sociodemographic factors were controlled for, the effect of ethnicity
disappeared. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that women with a
source of health care were less likely to cite any logistical barriers, but
significantly more likely to report only personal barriers (such as fear or
descuido). The analysis indicated that personal barriers were very prevalent
in the communities studied. It may not be sufficient merely to increase
access to breast cancer screening services for low-income Latinas: even when
women have a source of health care, personal barriers may prevent many women
from seeking screening. Outreach programs need to be tailored to the target
communities as there are significant differences among groups of Latinas.
Targeted outreach programs must work in tandem with programs to increase
access to ensure that both personal and logistical barriers to screening are
addressed.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998 May;152(5):440-8. Related Articles, Links


Families' recommendations for improving services for children with chronic
conditions.

Garwick AW, Kohrman C, Wolman C, Blum RW.

University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Maternal and Child Health
Program, Minneapolis 55455, USA.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been done on services and programs for
children with chronic conditions and their families from the perspective of
family caregivers from diverse cultural backgrounds. OBJECTIVE: To identify
recommendations that urban caregiving families from 3 major ethnocultural
backgrounds have for improving the care of children with chronic conditions
(ie, chronic illnesses and disabilities involving physical health
impairments). DESIGN: Qualitative, community-based study. SETTING: General
community. PARTICIPANTS: The volunteer convenience sample included 21
African American, 20 Hispanic, and 22 European American families from 2
midwestern cities who care for school-aged children with chronic conditions.
METHODS: In-home semistructured interviews were conducted with each child's
family caregivers. Content analytic techniques were used to identify and
classify 275 recommendations from 63 families. RESULTS: Families focused on
the following 4 topics: (1) improving the quality of health care services;
(2) decreasing barriers to services and programs; (3) improving the training
that health care professionals, families, and the public receive about
chronic conditions and their management; and (4) improving the quality and
availability of community-based services. Families from all 3 ethnic groups
had similar recommendations for improving services and programs; however,
several African American and Hispanic families also suggested making
information more culturally relevant and resources more accessible to
families from diverse cultural backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS: The findings
indicate that further work needs to be done to deliver care that is, indeed,
family centered and culturally sensitive. Families' recommendations provide
information that health care professionals and policymakers can use to
transform rhetoric about family-centered care into action.

PMID: 9605026 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


>
> JG
>
>

[PF Riley]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:16:08 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Jeff Utz" > wrote
>> > That's not saying much <g>; poor, stupid immigrants have access to all
>> > sorts of services--health, education--that many longtime residents are
>> > denied. Ask Roger what's happened in/to California!
>>
>> I disagree. While anyone can get treated at an emergency department,
>> immigrants and other poor people get poor medical care. Outstanding
>> treatment in an emergency department is poor primary care.
>
>So you think that they get great treatment when they are sick, so what
>is so poor about it? Are they missing the lectures about sleeping
>positions, smoke detectors, and guns?

So tell me, which is better: To get prostate cancer detected early
from a digital exam at a routine check-up, or to get it detected when
the patient shows up at an ER with acute urinary retention and an
inoperable tumor spread throughout the pelvis? Should an inguinal
hernia in a teenager be detected during a routine physical and
repaired electively, or is it better for him to present at an ER with
an acute incarceration with infarction and undergo emergency surgery
with bowel resection? Do you think a child with persistent asthma
should simply go to an ER to get acute exacerbations treated, and have
a gradual decline in lung function and persistent symptoms into
adulthood, or is it better to have continuity of care with a primary
physician to prescribe controller medications, monitor lung function,
and improve the patient's chance of outgrowing his asthma? Is it
better to show up at an ER with bloody stools, weight loss, and
obstipation so that you can be admitted for palliative care for the
carcinoma taking up half of your abdomen, or should your colon cancer
be detected through stool occult blood testing by your primary
physician when it is still treatable? Do you think that a toddler with
anisometropia without strabismus who never gets check-ups is better
off discovering later on at school that his amblyopic right eye is
only correctable to 20/400, or should the condition have been detected
before age 4 when aggressive treatment by an ophthalmologist could
have saved him from legal blindness in one eye? Do you think it makes
sense economically for parents of a toddler to take him to an ER every
time he has a fever even though he is usually discharged with a
diagnosis of "URI" after racking up quite a set of physician and
facility fees for the ER visit, or could it be better for the family
to have a doctor to call and have selective, less expensive office
visits only when it's necessary to have the child seen?

Please, seriously, Roger, answer each of these questions. They are not
meant to be simply rhetorical questions and I have seen each of these
scenarios plenty of time.

I think Roger, as usual, that you are trying to play stupid just to
aggravate people like me because I still have a hard time believing
you really can be such an idiot, but I would still like to know your
answers.

I remember a Spanish-speaking family came in to the ER where I trained
for an asthma exacerbation. They, as usual, had run out of the
medications the son had been prescribed at his previous ER visit. I
asked the translator to explain to them again that it's very important
for them to see a regular physician for follow-up visits for
monitoring and prescription refills so that he doesn't have to end up
in the ER for every asthma attack. I mentioned that not only would
this improve his chances of outgrowing his asthma and decrease his
risk of dying, but it's certainly less expensive. The translator
passed that along, the dad said something with a smile, and the
translator then began chewing him out in Spanish! I asked what he had
said, and the translator, who, along with me, pays 1.45% of his
hard-earned money to finance Medicaid, said the dad, in response to
the comment about the high cost of ER visits, replied, "Oh, that's OK,
we have Medicaid!" (In other words, "Screw you -- it's your money I'm
wasting, not mine!")

PF

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> I remember a Spanish-speaking family came in to the ER where I trained
> for an asthma exacerbation. They, as usual, had run out of the
> medications the son had been prescribed at his previous ER visit. ...
> we have Medicaid!" (In other words, "Screw you -- it's your money I'm
> wasting, not mine!")

I don't like paying for Medicaid freeloaders either. I don't agree with
the laws that say that illegal aliens can get free ER treatment, while
I have to pay big bucks for medical services. No, it is not fair, or
cost-effective, or efficient use of resources, or good policy. But the
upshot is that these poor people are getting excellent medical care
compared to what they'd be getting if they were living back in Mexico
and paying out of their own pockets.

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> You "answered" by making up an irrelevant analogy, and when I pointed
> this out, you said (2/6/01):
> >1. The official vaccine recommendations and schedules come from paid
> >industry lobbyists and contractors.
> >2. The data supporting those decisions is withheld from the public.
> >3. Those decisions are often demonstrably bad.
> >IMO, this situation is unacceptable. It is recipe for bad medical
> >decisions. That's why I suggest that patients/parents get their
> >own info and make their decisions.

Glad to see you are reading my messages.

> ...
> (This is where you claim that the company knew about the risk.)

The company did know -- it even printed a caution on the physician's
package insert.

> posed now by JG: "Why, then, would they (owners) intentionally do
> anything that would lessen potential profits, let alone leave them
> open to trouble (e.g., enormous judgments against them)?"

If the company had it to do all over again, and knew what it the
public knows now, it would not have pushed the rotavirus vaccine
so aggressively. Businesses do often makes mistakes in their
business decisions. I am sure the company thought that it was
maximizing its profits when it pushed for the vaccine, when it
made those payments to those on FDA and CDC committees,
and when it got the vaccine put on the official schedule for all
kids.

We would have a better system if the drug companies had to
fully disclose the test data, if the companies had to sell their drugs
on the merits, and if we have independent people on those
gubmnt committees.

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > > That's not saying much <g>; poor, stupid immigrants have access to all
> > > sorts of services--health, education--that many longtime residents are
> > > denied. Ask Roger what's happened in/to California!
> > I disagree. While anyone can get treated at an emergency department,
> > immigrants and other poor people get poor medical care. Outstanding
> > treatment in an emergency department is poor primary care.
>
> So you think that they get great treatment when they are sick, so what
> is so poor about it?

No. I said that "outstanding treatment in an emergency department is poor
primary care." I did not say that I think they get outstanding treatment in
the emergency department. An emergency department is a terrible place for
primary care. Immunizations are missed. Chronic conditions are poorly
treated. Developmental issues are not dealt with. And the continuity of
care is nearly non-existant.

> Are they missing the lectures about sleeping
> positions, smoke detectors, and guns?

Yes.

> > And why do immigrants not deserve good health care and education?
>
> I think that you deserve a good education. Go get one!

Thanks for the personal attack. But, I am going back to school to improve my
already excellent education.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "PF Riley" > wrote
> > I remember a Spanish-speaking family came in to the ER where I trained
> > for an asthma exacerbation. They, as usual, had run out of the
> > medications the son had been prescribed at his previous ER visit. ...
> > we have Medicaid!" (In other words, "Screw you -- it's your money I'm
> > wasting, not mine!")
>
> I don't like paying for Medicaid freeloaders either.

I am not convinced that all people on Medicaid are freeloaders. Certainly
some are. And the kids on Medicaid and many of the older Americans deserve a
break. At least as much of a break as I got.

> I don't agree with
> the laws that say that illegal aliens can get free ER treatment, while
> I have to pay big bucks for medical services.

You, too, can get free ER treatment.

> No, it is not fair, or
> cost-effective, or efficient use of resources, or good policy. But the
> upshot is that these poor people are getting excellent medical care
> compared to what they'd be getting if they were living back in Mexico
> and paying out of their own pockets.

And these people are working their butts off for low wages and no insurance.
I guess it works out fairly in the end. Except, even though their care is
better than in Mexico, it still is poor care.

Jeff

[PF Riley]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:43:53 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote
>> I remember a Spanish-speaking family came in to the ER where I trained
>> for an asthma exacerbation. They, as usual, had run out of the
>> medications the son had been prescribed at his previous ER visit. ...
>> we have Medicaid!" (In other words, "Screw you -- it's your money I'm
>> wasting, not mine!")
>
>I don't like paying for Medicaid freeloaders either. I don't agree with
>the laws that say that illegal aliens can get free ER treatment, while
>I have to pay big bucks for medical services. No, it is not fair, or
>cost-effective, or efficient use of resources, or good policy. But the
>upshot is that these poor people are getting excellent medical care
>compared to what they'd be getting if they were living back in Mexico
>and paying out of their own pockets.

So are we to assume, now, that you're changing your opinion from
"Immigrants get great medical care at the ER" to "Immigrants get
better medical care at U.S. ER's than they would at Mexican ER's?" If
so, then, what's your point?

PF

[PF Riley]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:22:02 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:
>
>We would have a better system if the drug companies had to
>fully disclose the test data, if the companies had to sell their drugs
>on the merits, and if we have independent people on those
>gubmnt committees.

Aha, so you're calling for MORE government regulation to fix the
"problem," then? Make MORE rules, right? Pass a regulatory law that
says the drug companies must release all of its raw data from safety
studies?

JG, what do you think? Would the Rotashield fiasco have been better
avoided by completely eliminating all government regulation and
letting Wyeth rely on its own honesty and integrity <snicker> instead
of answering to government committees because, after all, they would
"do the right thing" whether there were rules or not if profits are on
the line, correct? After all, no businessman would try to pull a fast
one on his customers to make an extra buck, right? Or would it have
been better, as Roger suggests, to have had more regulations so that
they wouldn't have been able to slip that intussusception issue past
us?

JG and Roger, why don't the two of you work this out amongst
yourselves and get back to us if/when you think you have a solution.

PF

[Wendy Marsden]

PF Riley > wrote:

> So are we to assume, now, that you're changing your opinion from
> "Immigrants get great medical care at the ER" to "Immigrants get
> better medical care at U.S. ER's than they would at Mexican ER's?" If
> so, then, what's your point?

I don't know about *his* point, but my point was that immigrants get
better access to medical care in the U.S. in 2003 than they did in 1903
and that difference can be a matter of life or death. In other words,
all else being equal, immigrant children died in 1903 that wouldn't die in
2003 purely based on access to a doctor due to having Medicaid.

I believe I mentioned that my great-grandfather was positive his children
died because of racism - the doctor wouldn't come to his house at a time
when doctors WENT to the homes of families with three sick children. I
believe racism still exists, but at least now the doctor can feel
confident that (s)he will get paid and so they don't have to actually be
altruistic in addition to non-racist.

By the way, I think it is a real struggle to imagine a time when doctors
didn't serve Jewish homes. But I believe it is true. I believe hardships
and deprivations exist that most affluent middle class people don't even
imagine. It's just not a world into which we have any access to see.

Wendy

[Mark Probert]

Jeff Utz wrote:

> The difference in speed kills. Drivers are much more likely to get in a
> wreck if the cars around them are going a different speed than they are. If
> everyone wear capable of safely driving 85 and drove 85, the roads would be
> safer than with some people driving 75, some 65 and some 45, as it is now.

Correct, to a point. There are those idiots who would never stop weaving
regardless of speed. It is not the different speeds that cause
problems, but, the need of some people to go around the slower cars.

[Mightyoledragon]

Your Help is Desperatly Needed to Stop Lead Poisoning in Children!
Hello MY Name is Shelly,
I'm writing this message in the hope of getting signatures/names for my crusade
against Lead Poisoning in Children. My 4 Children ( Brandon 5, Marissah 4,
Thomas 22 mos., and Jacob 6 mos.) were tested positive for lead poisoning! upon
testing of my appartment, we found that there were high levels of Lead!....
Each night as i layed my children down to sleep in their beds,i would watch
them kneel at the side of their beds to say their prayers,I would kiss them
goodnightand tuck them saftly into their beds so i thought.
Little did i Know that their rooms were where i left them each night to sleep
was loaded with lead! The one place i thought they were safe and sound,
Poisoned them!
My babies, My Sweet, innocent babies...I called everywhere i could think to
solve this matter, i even called my local Health Department. They informed me
that unless my childrens lead levels reach the dangerous level of 20 or above
they could not help me! i was so upset, i felt that no one cared about the
safty of my children but myself!
SO I made a vow to my children that i would fight the lagal system to have the
lead levels reduced.... Knowing that if i waited till their lead levels reached
20 they would already be suffering for the lead nad could experience learning
disabilities, Brain Damage and even Death in some cases!
I need to help my children and other Children!
and your help can put us one step closer to doing this!
below in an email address you can respond to, simply drop me a quick email and
tell me to put your name on the list!
Please also provide your email, the city and State you live in.
by signing this petition we can get these lead levels lowered! PLEASE WE REALLY
NEED YOUR HELP!
Signed,
Shelly In New York