Posts Made By: Douglas Reilly

Can't say much for Telly News.

Online, I like "antiwar.com"...although it's a libertarian anti-war group, their main page is a list of links to global newspaper sites (many Brit like the Independent of Guardian) and articles in mainstream US papers that are overlooked. Of course a lot of the stories are posted to build the anti-war veiw, but every day I find an article that sheds light on what is actually happening on the ground, and that's a service.

Guy,
Can you unscrew that black ring at the end of the drawtube in the photo? Is there a sliding tube that comes out of this focuser? I believe Vixen makes an adapter that will thread into the space where that black ring is (if it comes out) and fit 1.25" eps. Does that help?
Doug

Bart,
Until I realized I had bit off more than I could chew, I owned a Teeter truss. Workmanship was excellent. Rob Teeter I believe is highly regarded, and a totally nice guy to boot. The difference I felt between the truss and the tube newt I have is that with the truss I had to tweak the collimation with every set up and take down. It as usually close, but not quite. With the solid tube I don't have to do this as often. When I was picking up the Teeter truss in NJ, I got a looksy at one of his dob tube conversions. Very nice work. There are other makers that create tube conversions and not just truss dobs, however. There's E2 and Firstbase that both make dob mounts.

Doesn't JMI sell focuser extension tubes? Check their web site. Other folks sell them, including Lumicon, I'm sure others. But an extension tube is what you need.

Doug

There is general trouble with photo uploads at the moment. Seems to be a problem since yesterday, if you look at the current ads the most recent have no photos and many of them mention uploading difficulties. I have no doubt they'll be on it when the sun hits that side of the country...

d

Kinda a bad poll in that it's asking for extremes. People in the middle might vote either way, given what they don't want the most. The real choice we seem to have before us is: status quo or some kind of goverment-funded plan to insure the uninsured (and some kind of reform package to keep costs low). The scariest and most volatile idea is that public option.

bob smart said:

I live in Canada where we have universal health care.

My god, I'm shocked you're still alive.

"If you think the country is so unhealthy why don't you go live somewhere else where you get free health care. Europe perhaps?"

Why don't you go there for a visit, or even Canada, and assuming you can find a single living soul, ask people about health care. I've visited (and had these conversations) in: Canada, Denmark, Spain, and Slovakia. What I have found is that people are confident in their health-care systems, and that they don't worry about their futures like we do.

I don't want to go live in these countries, but I do want to learn from them and make our own nation stronger and better.

My best friend is a prominent sports and rehab physician. We used to argue about national health care. I was for it, he was against it. That was before he had long experience as a doctor. He has since visited the UK frequently over the past five years, and he has come around full circle on this issue. In the US, he spends more time each day arguing with insurance reps over treatments he knows are necessary than he does seeing patients and being a doctor. He feels like a paper-pusher. Yet he has no choice. This is the system as it is. He believes that the current system is insane. The system he sees in the UK is flawed, but sane.

Every US presidential candidate, in almost every speech, uses valuable time reiterating that the United States is the greatest country in the world. I find the need to constantly say that kinda funny. Sounds to me like we're trying to convince ourselves of something we don't really believe. The candidates don't spend time reiterating that the cloudless sky is blue, so I guess both ideas are not equally self-evident. Here's my stance: let's make sure that's true. Let's be number one in everything: lowest infant mortality, highest literacy, highest life expectancy, highest satisfaction in life (that honor goes to Denmark), across the board...

That's my two cents. And I agree with Mark, let's talk alternatives. Something that means that I never have to drop my quarters in a jar next to the cash register at a pizza place to help the family of a 10-year-old with leukemia avoid foreclosure.

Some of this part of the thread makes no sense.

Canada, UK's health care system laughable? Then why isn't there a revolt in those countries? People are actually happy (overall) with their systems in those and other countries with single-payer systems. That's just a fact. I'm sure there are cases, like Robert sees, of those that are unhappy or have fallen through the cracks. Rather like the volunteer firefighter who was wounded in an explosion and whose family is struggling with the threat of bankruptcy in my town. Yep, he just doesn't want to work. (Oh, he almost died trying to save someone else...ah, well, he should have been more careful. Yep, land of the brave, indeed, and land of the people who are too selfish to make sure the brave are covered. See, there's my individual anecdote, as true as Robert's "flood" of Canadian health care refugees.) The single-payer systems are only laughable to Americans who don't know better. Show me the surveys that show mass dissatisfaction with single-payer systems. Seriously, show me the science that proves any of what you are saying about single-payer systems. I can show you the science on satisfaction and well-being, infant mortality, life expectancy, confidence in the health care system. All higher (or lower in the case of infant mortality) in countries with single-payer systems.

Only capitalism moves progress forward. Please. For one, single-payer systems do not mean a socialized health care sector. Medical technology, research, and pharma remains privatized in Europe and Canada, and R&D rolls forward, new things come out, some of them innovative. Ever hear of a revolutionary treatment coming out of Europe, or a new cancer drug? Of course. This has nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And what makes these European companies develop new drugs and revolutionary treatments? If all they could do was to sell them in Europe and to countries that have single payer systems they would go out of business. They develop them so they can sell them in the United States where they can get a fair return on their investment.

Well, for one, pharma represents 10% of health care spending in the US. It's not pharma that's the real problem nor is it pharma that represents the target of reform (it's health insurance companies...let's here some defense of our awesome insurance companies!)

In my mind, a revolutionary drug or treatment you can't afford is not very revolutionary. An advanced treatment that you can't afford leaves you dead, and we shouldn't be holding pot-luck fundraisers to keep people out of bankruptcy when they can't afford health insurance. Single payer systems do slow progress...I'll admit that...but they do so in order to cover everyone. That sounds horrible, I know. But consider what happens in our system: we develop high tech cures for the few while denying basic health care to millions. That's why our infant mortality figures are rivaled by some third-world countries.

Is there a way to create a just system where I don't have to donate my spare change to a firefighter's family? You tell me. If the answer is that we have the best system possible, I simply don't agree. Explain to me why people who live in single payer systems are overall happy with those systems, while we are overall unhappy with ours?

We sacrifice good universal coverage for great coverage for those who can afford it.

The current proposal doesn't create a single-payer system, actually, so why are we arguing about it? It creates a public option to cover those who can't afford health care, and it tries to limit the extortion of the insurance companies. What's the argument against this? It's not socialized medicine, it's not single-payer, it's a public option that you will probably not ever have to rely on? So why is it so frightening?

What frightens me is the "me first" attitude of many Americans that keeps us from reaching our potential.

We are so innovative, why can't we figure out a system that covers everyone?