[pharg]

[quote=”sweikert925″]
Dear sir,
We can’t answer your question.
[/quote]

Doncha luv mindless bureaucrats:?:

[pharg]

[/quote]
Strangely, a lot of people who continually rant about the horrors of “socialism” seem to have no problem with it – when they are on the [b]receiving[/b] end of some government program or other.[/quote]

Washington peabrains don’t seem to realize that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are forms of socialism [horrors!]
The result has been the abysmal state of health care in the U.S.

What is the U.S. ranking of infant mortality on the 1st day of birth? The U.S. shares the same infant mortality rate as Syria, Sri Lanka, Romania, Albania, and Tonga among many others. Some of the countries BETTER than the U.S. are, among many others: Poland, El Salvador, [b]Costa Rica[/b], Serbia, Bulgaria and Bosnia/Herzegovina. The ‘best’: Sweden, Singapore, Estonia, Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg.

In terms of maternal health, the U.S. ranks 30 out of 176 (up from 43d in 2006). Number 1? ….Finland.

Compared with six other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom — the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.

In terms of life expectancy, the U.S. ranks 36.

In overall health care, the U.S. ranks 37 or 38 (just behind [b]Costa Rica[/b] ) out of 190 countries. (#1 is France). But the U.S. is clearly #1 on per capita costs of health care.

This makes the medical profession and all supporting health conglomerates quite proud, and they all got together and sponsored a commemorative hymn. ([b]sing[/b] [b]along!![/b]):lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&gl=US&client=mv-google&v=yVgOl3cETb4

I am mostly pro-U.S., except in governance but still would like to see all D.C. politicians converted to recycled carbon. (WAIT! – the resulting carbon dioxide would contribute to global change!)
PEH

[pharg]

“… Costa Rica is noted for its modern highways….”[4 minute mark]

yes, how things do change in 66 years

[pharg]

[quote=”sweikert925″]
Absolutely correct. Since 1996 (the earliest I could get data for) the USD gained against the CRC steadily until 2006 but since then except for 2009-2010 (no doubt due to the financial collapse here in the US) the colon has stayed almost constant against the dollar. See these figures for the exchange rate on January 1st from 1996-2012:

1996-01-01 $1.00=191.76 CRC
1997-01-01 $1.00=219.88 CRC
1998-01-01 $1.00=243.65 CRC
1999-01-01 $1.00=271.42 CRC
2000-01-01 $1.00=297.7 CRC
2001-01-01 $1.00=317.45 CRC
2002-01-01 $1.00=328.07 CRC
2003-01-01 $1.00=367.08 CRC
2004-01-01 $1.00=409.07 CRC
2005-01-01 $1.00=449.29 CRC
2006-01-01 $1.00=495.8 CRC
2007-01-01 $1.00=498.35 CRC
2008-01-01 $1.00=487 CRC
2009-01-01 $1.00=539.88 CRC
2010-01-01 $1.00=546.48 CRC
2011-01-01 $1.00=497.24 CRC
2012-01-01 $1.00=490.47 CRC

Going back in time a bit farther, when I relocated from C.R. back to the U.S. in 1979, I bought a rather large CD [in colones] with dolares. The exchange rate at the time was $1 = 8.5CRC.
Hmmm. Wonder what it’s worth [in dolares] now? Let’s see… 8.5/490 = 1.7% Not what I would call a good investment. I don’t know the value in colones now, since BN stopped sending me quarterly reports in 2006.
😥

[pharg]

[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
The issue I have with this entire conversation is the use of so called “experts” and Internet sources to make an argument or challenge the position of others. TIME is the only true arbiter of what is reality. Unfortunate but true.
[/quote]
With regard to climate change if certain experts are right then there are actions we need to take NOW to forestall serious consequences. Yes, we can wait until the evidence is clearer but that would be pretty foolish.[/quote]

In a better world, opinions [and votes] about our changing world would be based on knowledge and understanding. There is a (FREE!) online course concerning global change and human health, taught from Harvard, at:
https://www.edx.org/course/harvard-university/ph278x/human-health-and-global/573

Harvard (pronounced ‘Hahvid’) also offers other courses for free, but this Fall they will start charging for them.
Although it has been up and running for a week, I suspect you can still jump in if you’re interested, and if you have no bias against the intellectual rigor of Harvard.

[pharg]

Scott wrote: “…can any of you make sense of this?”

Once again, we must turn to Mark Twain for clarity:
‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.’:wink:

[pharg]

[quote=”imxploring”][
Seems the “expert” (via the EPA and Christie Todd Whitman) told us the dust cloud blanketing lower Manhattan after 9/11 didn’t pose a health and safety hazard. Were they simply wrong or was their “expert” opinion based on something other than science? Or were they right and the health issues faced by rescuers, those who believed the “experts”, just an aberration?
[snip]
Because the facts and information presented as well as the rules (science) are subject to the interpretation of individuals with different views and agendas wishing to shape the result into something they feel is correct.[/quote]

Whitman was a poor choice as head of EPA – most of her pronouncements were politically vetted by the White House with a brief nod to science [in my view].

But it’s much harder to argue with the interpretation of HARD FACTS such as:
-carbon dioxide traps reflected solar heat in the atmosphere
-for the first time in several million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide surpassed 400 parts per million.
-for the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide varied from 180-280 ppm.
-the increase from 280 to 400 coincides EXACTLY with the Industrial revolution when the use of fossil fuels started.
-the carbon dioxide increase was about 0.7ppm per year in the 1950s, but since 2000 it has been 2.1ppm per year

Now, to me these facts are pretty conclusive for global WARMING (but not necessarily applicable to other facets of global CHANGE – but there are still too many people who refuse/ignore/deny these facts. For Costa Rica, warming may be hardly noticeable in the short [annual or decadal]term, but by 2100 it will be quite different. Precipitation patterns and biodiversity changes are another story.

PEH

[pharg]

[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Federal Benefits section of embassy indicates that over 5,000 expats in CR are receiving federal benefits. I don’t know if they are all ‘retired’, but that would push the retired population from 19% of that 16,000 to around 30%. Odd, don’t you think?[/quote]

Fortunately, Mark Twain was able to put all of this discrepancy in perspective:
-“There are three kinds of lies: lies; damned lies; and statistics”
-“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable”
-“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as much as you please”

He apparently spent some time with the Tico (and U.S.) government.
PEH

[pharg]

[quote=”sprite”]

You won’t hear any conspiracy theories from me regarding climate change….unless the sun is out out get us. There are theories on both sides of the fence regarding climate. [/quote]

Well, the sun IS out to get us, but not because of ill will or intent. Intense solar ultraviolet light is screened out by our ozone layer [even though some (UV-B and UV-A) gets through.UV rapidly causes mutations in DNA. Before there was ozone, there was little life on earth. Not to mention lots of deadly particles and other cosmic wavelengths deflected by earth’s magnetic field (aurora borealis anyone?)
Ans as far as theories go, seldom has a word been so misused. A theory is a concept that is substantially or completely supported by known facts (theory of gravity for example). There is a ‘hypothesis’ that global climate change is not really happening, but with little factual support it is hardly a theory.
PEH
[once again, my 40 years of teaching peeps through habitually]

[pharg]

[quote=”Scott”]Well it better start soon and it’s worth noting that last year’s rainfall was much lower than normal, right Tom? So even a 20% increase won’t bring it up to the usual rainfall…
I’ll try and get more data on that …
Scott
[/quote]

The National Academy of Sciences summarizes models that predict a 10-20% reduction in precipitation throughout Central America in upcoming decades (p.23 in the Spanish version).
Spanish & English versions available at:

[url=http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/]Nas-Sites.org[/url]

(…and hopefully I will be spared the ridiculous and paranoid mantra, that climate change is a vast international conspiracy among 10s of thousands of scientists to get more research grant money)

[pharg]

The first time I lived in C.R., 1979, the ‘official’ tally was 26,000 ‘furriners’ – as I recall they were considered mostly gringos, but I suppose the accuracy of that was less than it is now.:wink:
That was about the time of the first wave of Nicas streaming in, and many Ticos I encountered were scornful of them even then. The Nicas I met were quite happy to be in C.R.

[pharg]

[quote=”pharg”]

This is distressingly close to Sarah Palin’s comment while she still governesss. She said she had never been to a foreign country – having recently to AK after a meeting in Canada to discuss the proposed new oil pipeline.:roll:[/quote]
sorry, governess is double ‘s’, not triple; and ‘returned’ should be inserted between ‘recently’ and ‘to’.
(sticky keys or brain ‘gas’ – you decide)8)
PEH

[pharg]

[quote=”johnr”]
Exactly – I think Captain Crunch thinks Canada and Alaska are part of Eurasia.[/quote]

This is distressingly close to Sarah Palin’s comment while she still governesss. She said she had never been to a foreign country – having recently to AK after a meeting in Canada to discuss the proposed new oil pipeline.:roll:

[pharg]

[quote=”johnnyh”]Is this just hot air coming from Presidente Ortega? Or is it a ploy to get gringo money not to build it?
According to La Nacion, the Panamanian government is sending assistance to Nicaragua. This does not make sense for Panama. Why would they want another canal to compete with them, specially since Panama is widening their canal.
[/quote]

Well then, is Panama giving them money specifically for a canal?
Is China out of it now?
http://www.ticotimes.net/Obama-in-C.R/News-Briefs/Winners-and-losers-in-Nicaragua-s-Grand-Canal-project_Monday-October-08-2012
This canal has been NicaNews since the 16th century.
The most blunderheaded plan was to blow a canal open with nuclear warheads.
PEH

[pharg]

[quote=”bogino”]
Stupid me I guess. [/quote]

Now, now – don’t be so hard on yourself. ‘Stupid’ is lacking intelligence, ‘ignorant’ is not knowing about something.
I am ignorant about many things, but occasionally do something stupid. Not knowing about Alaskan 6-legged vampires is ignorance, not stupidity. (sorry, 40+ years as a professor shows through sometimes).
I prefer to assume members here may be sometimes ignorant but never stupid.:wink:

[Author]

Posts