Short vocab quiz for Scottie

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

We Smart Guys have a system of communication called language. In this
system are units called words. Words have two salient characteristics: They
have meanings and they have grammatical roles. The number of grammatical
roles is quite small, but the number of meanings is so great that it's
uncountable. Different words can sometimes be used interchangeably, but
other times not. No two words are identical in all contexts and all
inflections.

With that in mind, take the word "know". This word is grammatically a verb.
It is closely related to the noun (another grammatical class of words)
"knowledge". Human beings use the word "know" to convey the meaning of
comprehension or recognition or understanding. You've probably used "know"
yourself in your fragmentary version of human language.

Now for your quiz: What is the difference between knowledge and faith?

[Sophistic]

Pudge the Gimp minced:

> What is the difference between knowledge and faith?

He's secure in the former you haven't any of the latter.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 8:34*pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
> Pudge the Gimp minced:
>
> > What is the difference between knowledge and faith?
>
> He's secure in the former you haven't any of the latter.

Are you confusing "faith" with "belief in Jesus"?

Get a dictionary, sugar. LOL!

[Boon]

On Dec 26, 8:09�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 8:34�pm, "Sophistic" > wrote:
>
> > Pudge the Gimp minced:
>
> > > What is the difference between knowledge and faith?
>
> > He's secure in the former you haven't any of the latter.
>
> Are you confusing "faith" with "belief in Jesus"?
>
> Get a dictionary, sugar. LOL!

He doesn't need one. He has a "Word of the Day" calendar in his
cubicle.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > > > What is the difference between knowledge and faith?
> >
> > > He's secure in the former you haven't any of the latter.
> >
> > Are you confusing "faith" with "belief in Jesus"?
> > Get a dictionary, sugar. LOL!
>
> He doesn't need one. He has a "Word of the Day" calendar in his
> cubicle.

As usual, the snottiest and most dishonest posters are the self-professed
"christians". Between Arnii, Scottie, and Stynchie, it's hard to figure out
where the faith ends and the ****tiness begins.

[Boon]

On Dec 27, 12:50�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > > > > What is the difference between knowledge and faith?
>
> > > > He's secure in the former you haven't any of the latter.
>
> > > Are you confusing "faith" with "belief in Jesus"?
> > > Get a dictionary, sugar. LOL!
>
> > He doesn't need one. �He has a "Word of the Day" calendar in his
> > cubicle.
>
> As usual, the snottiest and most dishonest posters are the self-professed
> "christians". Between Arnii, Scottie, and Stynchie, it's hard to figure out
> where the faith ends and the ****tiness begins.

Is Scott a Christian? He's said that he isn't. Might just be another
debating trade trick.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > As usual, the snottiest and most dishonest posters are the self-professed
> > "christians". Between Arnii, Scottie, and Stynchie, it's hard to figure out
> > where the faith ends and the ****tiness begins.
>
> Is Scott a Christian? He's said that he isn't. Might just be another
> debating trade trick.

He talks the talk, that's for sure. You're probably right about Witless
trying a "trick", like maybe the only true christians are roman catholics.

[Boon]

On Dec 27, 2:04�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > > As usual, the snottiest and most dishonest posters are the self-professed
> > > "christians". Between Arnii, Scottie, and Stynchie, it's hard to figure out
> > > where the faith ends and the ****tiness begins.
>
> > Is Scott a Christian? �He's said that he isn't. �Might just be another
> > debating trade trick.
>
> He talks the talk, that's for sure. You're probably right about Witless
> trying a "trick", like maybe the only true christians are roman catholics..

Well, I just remember our debate about religion when he suddenly
reversed himself and said that he wasn't a believer, he was just
offended that I would attack the personal beliefs of others. First of
all, a religious debate is pretty pointless when neither party is a
believer. Second, it's pretty hypocritical to speak of atheism/
agnosticism as ill-mannered when you think of all the people who have
been killed in the name of Jeebus, God and Allah.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 6:00*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2:04 pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Boon said:
>
> > > > As usual, the snottiest and most dishonest posters are the self-professed
> > > > "christians". Between Arnii, Scottie, and Stynchie, it's hard to figure out
> > > > where the faith ends and the ****tiness begins.
>
> > > Is Scott a Christian? He's said that he isn't. Might just be another
> > > debating trade trick.
>
> > He talks the talk, that's for sure. You're probably right about Witless
> > trying a "trick", like maybe the only true christians are roman catholics.
>
> Well, I just remember our debate about religion when he suddenly
> reversed himself and said that he wasn't a believer, he was just
> offended that I would attack the personal beliefs of others. *

Well, 2pid, is Jesus your Savior?

Are you a Christian? Are you an adherent of any religion?

Do you go to church? If yes, which denomination?

Or is all of your blather on the "possibilities continuum" just more
arguing for the sake of arguing?

BTW, 2pid, most religions frown upon denouncing them. Remember the
cock crowing. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Arnii, did you license Scottie to tell a bunch of transparent lies on RAO?

> > > Well, I just remember our debate about religion when he suddenly
> > > reversed himself and said that he wasn't a believer,
>
> I said I am not a Christian.

It's still a lie no matter how many times you yap it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 11:58*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 5:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 6:00*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 2:04 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Boon said:
>
> > > > > > As usual, the snottiest and most dishonest posters are the self-professed
> > > > > > "christians". Between Arnii, Scottie, and Stynchie, it's hard to figure out
> > > > > > where the faith ends and the ****tiness begins.
>
> > > > > Is Scott a Christian? He's said that he isn't. Might just be another
> > > > > debating trade trick.
>
> > > > He talks the talk, that's for sure. You're probably right about Witless
> > > > trying a "trick", like maybe the only true christians are roman catholics.
>
> > > Well, I just remember our debate about religion when he suddenly
> > > reversed himself and said that he wasn't a believer,
>
> *I said I am not a Christian.

So you are not a follower of any religion, but some religions are
"better" than others and all of them fall on "the contiuum of
possibility".

> > > he was just
> > > offended that I would attack the personal beliefs of others. *
>
> *That is offensive and unnecessary.

Not when those personal beliefs impact others. Then they become *my*
beliefs and not by choice.

Just like Sharia!

> > Well, 2pid, is Jesus your Savior?
>
> > Are you a Christian? Are you an adherent of any religion?
>
> *No.

But you're not an atheist, right? You cannot exclude the "possibility"
that you're going to heaven.

> > Do you go to church? If yes, which denomination?
>
> No.

Do you 'think' the Christian right is a good thing for the US?

> > Or is all of your blather on the "possibilities continuum" just more
> > arguing for the sake of arguing?
>
> *No. *You have some serious limitations in the number of possibilities
> you can even consider let alone grasp.

I concur: Moses had some big-ass magnets.

> > BTW, 2pid, most religions frown upon denouncing them.
>
> and one goes upon murderous rampages.
>
> Still, you frown upon religion so in this regard I see no
> difference between you and "most religions".

Yes, 2pid, "frowning" on a thing that "goes upon murderous rampages"
or "limit personal rights" in the name of their god (and *most* have,
not just Islam) is the same thing. LoL.

Another question: is Christianity "superior" to Islam?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 12:40*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:18*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 11:58*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 5:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 27, 6:00*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 27, 2:04 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Boon said:
>
> > > > > > > > As usual, the snottiest and most dishonest posters are the self-professed
> > > > > > > > "christians". Between Arnii, Scottie, and Stynchie, it's hard to figure out
> > > > > > > > where the faith ends and the ****tiness begins.
>
> > > > > > > Is Scott a Christian? He's said that he isn't. Might just be another
> > > > > > > debating trade trick.
>
> > > > > > He talks the talk, that's for sure. You're probably right about Witless
> > > > > > trying a "trick", like maybe the only true christians are roman catholics.
>
> > > > > Well, I just remember our debate about religion when he suddenly
> > > > > reversed himself and said that he wasn't a believer,
>
> > > *I said I am not a Christian.
>
> > So you are not a follower of any religion, but some religions are
> > "better" than others
>
> *In that they are more tolerant of others, yes.

For example?

> > *and all of them fall on "the contiuum of
> > possibility".
>
> *Where did I ever say that? *I never claimed to
> *have an opinion on all religions or even all aspects
> of any specific religion.

No, but you've said that my rejection of the Red Sea business is due
to not considering all possibilities, or some such nonsense.

> > > > > he was just
> > > > > offended that I would attack the personal beliefs of others. *
>
> > > *That is offensive and unnecessary.
>
> > Not when those personal beliefs impact others. Then they become *my*
> > beliefs and not by choice.
>
> *No they don't. *Now we're back against religious beliefs and
> government. I don't believe in Teachers Unions but they have
> as much or more influence in state politics than any religion.

Not true. They may be able to impact legislation concerning education,
but that is a small part of government.

> I guess I should personally attack teachers rather than just their
> union supported policies.

Those policies do not impact the civil rights of minorities, 2pid.

> > Just like Sharia!
>
> > > > Well, 2pid, is Jesus your Savior?
>
> > > > Are you a Christian? Are you an adherent of any religion?
>
> > > *No.
>
> > But you're not an atheist, right?
>
> No.

So you believe in a supernatural god, or you are an agnostic. Which is
it?

> > *You cannot exclude the "possibility"
> > that you're going to heaven.
>
> *Can you? *Do you reject any possibility
> of an afterlife in any form?

Yes. A rational mind would in the absence of any evidence.

You, OTOH, feel that you might "have faith" that such a thing is
possible. Which is why you can never again give someone who "has
faith" that their cables sound better any grief. You're now one of
them.

> > > > Do you go to church? If yes, which denomination?
>
> > > No.
>
> > Do you 'think' the Christian right is a good thing for the US?
>
> I don't think the "Christian right" has any meaning except to
> people who engage in stereotypes.

Then you're an imbecile. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition, James
Dobson and Focus on Family...

These are not men who are "rendering unto Caesar". These are men who
are trying to choose who Caesar should be.

> > > > Or is all of your blather on the "possibilities continuum" just more
> > > > arguing for the sake of arguing?
>
> > > *No. *You have some serious limitations in the number of possibilities
> > > you can even consider let alone grasp.
>
> > I concur: Moses had some big-ass magnets.
>
> or a benefactor.

A supernatural benefactor, or a rich benefactor who paid for the
magnets?

> > > > BTW, 2pid, most religions frown upon denouncing them.
>
> > > and one goes upon murderous rampages.
>
> > > Still, you frown upon religion so in this regard I see no
> > > difference between you and "most religions".
>
> > Yes, 2pid, "frowning" on a thing that "goes upon murderous rampages"
>
> Do you? I 've not seen any condemnation of Islam and it's
> non-tolerance teachings from you.

Because it isn't "Islam" that blows up buses, 2pid. It's "Islamists".

But if I say that their belief in Islam is worng or bad, I'm guilty of
this:

*********************
> he was just
> offended that I would attack the personal beliefs of others.

That is offensive and unnecessary.
*******************************

You can't have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.

> > or "limit personal rights" in the name of their god (and *most* have,
> > not just Islam) is the same thing.
>
> "limit personal rights" is so vague and meaningless.
> *Can't you be more explicit?
>
> >LoL.
>
> > Another question: is Christianity "superior" to Islam?
>
> Define superior and the perspective you wish to evaluate
> from.

You choose.

> Individual or worldwide...women or men?
> Hetero or homosexual?
> How about from your perspective of personal beliefs
> impacting you?

I see no difference between them.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 12:20*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> * LoL. Poor George. *You just can't accept anyone for what
> they are

We all accept you for the imbecile that you are. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 29, 11:26*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:35*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 12:40*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> > > *No they don't. *Now we're back against religious beliefs and
> > > government. I don't believe in Teachers Unions but they have
> > > as much or more influence in state politics than any religion.
>
> > Not true. They may be able to impact legislation concerning education,
> > but that is a small part of government.
>
> *LoL. You are quite naive.
> *Out here they're lobbying on taxes and revenue allocation.

As it concerns education? Why shouldn't they?

For all the efforts of the union and its smaller rival, the California
Federation of Teachers, the state's schools still lag behind the
national average in per-pupil spending, and classes are larger than
most in other states.

The average teacher earned $56,444 in the last school year. Although
that was more than their peers made in most other states, a recent
Rand Corp. study concluded that it ranked below the national average
when adjusted for California's high cost of living.

https://caclean.org/problem/latimes_2005-09-28.php

Or are they into other things as well, like military spending?

> > > I guess I should personally attack teachers rather than just their
> > > union supported policies.
>
> > Those policies do not impact the civil rights of minorities, 2pid.
>
> *School choice.

Are they lobbying to not allow minorities to go to school?

> > So you believe in a supernatural god, or you are an agnostic. Which is
> > it?
>
> *Closer to Agnostic than belief though neither suits me well
> as a stereotype.

No, since you later say that Moses having a "supernatural benefactor"
is within the "realm of possibilities".

> > > > *You cannot exclude the "possibility"
> > > > that you're going to heaven.
>
> > > *Can you? *Do you reject any possibility
> > > of an afterlife in any form?
>
> > Yes. A rational mind would in the absence of any evidence.
>
> *You have some significant limitations.

What, in looking at things rationally? Oh well. Guilty as charged.

> > You, OTOH, feel that you might "have faith" that such a thing is
> > possible. Which is why you can never again give someone who "has
> > faith" that their cables sound better any grief.
>
> You and your silly analogies. *I've said some cables may sound
> different, especially when being driven by high impedance sources.
> Of course recognizing that such designs are deficient is not
> usually the claims that accompany cable literature.

Who says they're "deficient"?

If supernatural properties or beings are within the "realm of
possibilities" who's to say that God didn't grant superior hearing
skills to some and not to others? Your faith in the "possibility" of
something that doesn't follow the natural laws science also therefore
must apply to electicity.

> > *You're now one of
> > them.
>
> *Yawn. *Your insistence to stereotype grows boring.

Stereotype? LoL. I'm simply responding to what you have said, 2pid.

> > > I don't think the "Christian right" has any meaning except to
> > > people who engage in stereotypes.
>
> > Then you're an imbecile. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition, James
> > Dobson and Focus on Family...
>
> *http://www.focusonthefamily.com/
>
> *Are you going the weigh the good and bad to see which way
> the balance tilts?

What do you consider "good"? What do you consider "bad"?

> > These are not men who are "rendering unto Caesar". These are men who
> > are trying to choose who Caesar should be.
>
> * Something we should leave to the democratic party IYO.

Nope.

> * What you complain about are people using common beliefs to
> guide their decisions and support in a democratic government.

When those "common beliefs" are religious in nature, yes I do.

The Constitution has something to say about that as well.

> > > > > *No. *You have some serious limitations in the number of possibilities
> > > > > you can even consider let alone grasp.
>
> > > > I concur: Moses had some big-ass magnets.
>
> > > or a benefactor.
>
> > A supernatural benefactor,
>
> *Possibly.

See, 2pid? If you think that things falling outside natural laws is a
possibility, that applies to the makers of stereo equipment as well.

Your being locked into measurements of *known* properties does not
allow for those *unknown* supernatural properties.

> > or a rich benefactor who paid for the
> > magnets?
>
> Bought from who in that time?

You're the one who brought up parting water with magnets, 2pid. You
tell me.

> > > > > > BTW, 2pid, most religions frown upon denouncing them.
>
> > > > > and one goes upon murderous rampages.
>
> > > > > Still, you frown upon religion so in this regard I see no
> > > > > difference between you and "most religions".
>
> > > > Yes, 2pid, "frowning" on a thing that "goes upon murderous rampages"
>
> > > Do you? I 've not seen any condemnation of Islam and it's
> > > non-tolerance teachings from you.
>
> > Because it isn't "Islam" that blows up buses, 2pid. It's "Islamists".
>
> *Where did they learn to do that?

From the same type of person who shoots a doctor at an abortion
clininc, or from the same type of person who has a personal
conversation with God about running for political office, I suppose.

Sarah Palin? LoL.

> > But if I say that their belief in Islam is worng or bad, I'm guilty of
> > this:
>
> > *********************
>
> > > he was just
> > > offended that I would attack the personal beliefs of others.
>
> > That is offensive and unnecessary.
> > *******************************
>
> > You can't have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
>
> *Actually I can. *You see the difference is when a religion
> has no tolerance for freedom of religion.

None of them do. There is not a single religion that claims other
religions are "just as right". Read your bible.

> IMO, Islam cannot coexist with western secular society.

Then get involved politically and recommend legislation outlawing it.

> > > > or "limit personal rights" in the name of their god (and *most* have,
> > > > not just Islam) is the same thing.
>
> > > "limit personal rights" is so vague and meaningless.
> > > *Can't you be more explicit?
>
> *Apparently you cannot. I'm not surprised.

It's so obvious I figured that even a boob like you would know. I was
wrong.

> > > > Another question: is Christianity "superior" to Islam?
>
> > > Define superior and the perspective you wish to evaluate
> > > from.
>
> > You choose.
>
> *It's your question. I'm not going to formulate it for you.

It's a general question, 2pid: is Christianity a "better" religion
than Islam? If your answer is "no", where is Islam superior?

> > I see no difference between them.
>
> *You see no difference how current Islam teaches inequality
> for women vs Christianity?

"Current"? Do you mean that Christianity once didn't consider women
equal? Do you mean that Christianity has evolved over time? Do you
mean that it's "on the continuum of possibilities" that Islam might
too?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > Those policies do not impact the civil rights of minorities, 2pid.
> >
> > *School choice.
>
> Are they lobbying to not allow minorities to go to school?

Scottie is in favor of "school choice", but he's against health insurance.
He must be consumed by a tidal wave of compassion.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 14:01, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > Those policies do not impact the civil rights of minorities, 2pid.
>
> > > *School choice.
>
> > Are they lobbying to not allow minorities to go to school?
>
> Scottie is in favor of "school choice", but he's against health insurance..
> He must be consumed by a tidal wave of compassion.

health care is a requirement of living, like food and shelter.
We have subsidized programs for poor people
for food (food stamps) and for shelter (Section 8).
We should have a subsidy for health care insurance
for poor people, similar to Section 8 for housing.
Don't change the health care system, just
subsidize health insurance costs for poorer people,
working poor for example.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 30, 3:54*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> Don't change *the health care system, just
> subsidize health insurance costs for poorer people,
> working poor for example.

Why would you want to keep something that only works for about 2/3 of
the population?

Most doctors and nurses that I know think universal healthcare is a no-
brainer.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > Don't change *the health care system, just
> > subsidize health insurance costs for poorer people,
> > working poor for example.
>
> Why would you want to keep something that only works for about 2/3 of
> the population?
>
> Most doctors and nurses that I know think universal healthcare is a no-
> brainer.

That would conflict with the way we've always administered health care. One
job, one insurance policy.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 18:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:54*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > Don't change *the health care system, just
> > subsidize health insurance costs for poorer people,
> > working poor for example.
>
> Why would you want to keep something that only works for about 2/3 of
> the population?
>

It only doesn't work because
they can't afford to buy in.


> Most doctors and nurses that I know think universal healthcare is a no-
> brainer.


yes, it is for people with no brains, such as the British or
Canadians.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Dec, 18:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:54*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > Don't change *the health care system, just
> > subsidize health insurance costs for poorer people,
> > working poor for example.
>
> Why would you want to keep something that only works for about 2/3 of
> the population?
>
> Most doctors and nurses that I know think universal healthcare is a no-
> brainer.

BTW, medicaid is basically en emulation of a
health insurance policy, albeit goevernment paid.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 30, 6:36*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 30 Dec, 18:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 3:54*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > Don't change *the health care system, just
> > > subsidize health insurance costs for poorer people,
> > > working poor for example.
>
> > Why would you want to keep something that only works for about 2/3 of
> > the population?
>
> It only doesn't work because
> they can't afford to buy in.

So you'd be for the government paying for those that can't afford it.

> > Most doctors and nurses that I know think universal healthcare is a no-
> > brainer.
>
> yes, it is for people with no brains, such as the British or
> Canadians.

Gee, their percent of GDP spent on healthcare is well below ours. And
those that can afford it still can have healthcare wherever they want.
How does that work?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > Most doctors and nurses that I know think universal healthcare is a no-
> > > brainer.
> >
> > yes, it is for people with no brains, such as the British or
> > Canadians.
>
> Gee, their percent of GDP spent on healthcare is well below ours. And
> those that can afford it still can have healthcare wherever they want.
> How does that work?

Having an MRI machine within half a mile of every American is good for
business.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Dec, 00:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:


> > yes, it is for people with no brains, such as the British or
> > Canadians.
>
> Gee, their percent of GDP spent on healthcare is well below ours. And
> those that can afford it still can have healthcare wherever they want.
> How does that work?

For Great Britain and certain provinces in Canada, that is just not
true.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 31, 7:35*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 31 Dec, 00:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > > yes, it is for people with no brains, such as the British or
> > > Canadians.
>
> > Gee, their percent of GDP spent on healthcare is well below ours. And
> > those that can afford it still can have healthcare wherever they want.
> > How does that work?
>
> For Great Britain *and certain provinces in Canada, that is just not
> true.

I wonder what clinic Sir Richard Branson or Sir Paul McCartney wait
at.

Do you happen to know? I'd like to get their autographs. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Dec, 15:50, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 7:35*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 31 Dec, 00:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > yes, it is for people with no brains, such as the British or
> > > > Canadians.
>
> > > Gee, their percent of GDP spent on healthcare is well below ours. And
> > > those that can afford it still can have healthcare wherever they want..
> > > How does that work?
>
> > For Great Britain *and certain provinces in Canada, that is just not
> > true.
>
> I wonder what clinic Sir Richard Branson or Sir Paul McCartney wait
> at.
>
> Do you happen to know? I'd like to get their autographs. ;-)

I thought had read a while ago that GB has a one tier system (maybe it
was
parts of Canada that does), but I did some reading and found that
there
is private health care through health insurance coverage,
similar to US, ususally provided by employers.
People who can opt for that usually do, as ot is superior
to the rationed National health care.
That is wy I would prefer the US to keep its superior system,
but make it affordable for everyone, through subsidy
of premiums.