Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 14:26 T Wake wrote: much snippage > There are two issues you are trying to conflate into one. > 1. A NHS would be an improvement over the current US system. You apparantly have no idea how badly governments can screw things up. An NHS in the USA would probably be a huge step backwards. Medicare and health insurance currently pay most of my bills at the Mayo Clinic. It is difficult to say what would happen to the Mayo, and a good sized handfull of other similar facilities scattered around the country. And I'll tell you that there's nothing in the world I'd trade for my access to the Mayo. I have to drive a long day to get there and spring for the motel fee for several days every time I go there, but the depth of understanding of health along with statistical probabilities of an individual having undetected and symptomless conditions has proved, IMO, without peer as well as important to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic > 2. Is the US capable of implementing a proper NHS? > You assume the answer to 2 is "no" which you then use to try and argue > against 1. > If the US is not capable of running a national health service that is an > entirely different matter. That's the most likely. And that's before we get to discuss the millions of illegal/undocumented aliens in this country. >>I've been trying to explain. You've kept it local. You have a small >>geographic area. It is a lot easier to administer and deliver >>services. > Your sense of scale is seriously out of kilter. The UK NHS is smaller scale > than one in the US would be, however it still leaves a big so what? Communism works only on a small scale. > Unless you think the US is incapable of administering something like this, > you have to remember the US does indeed have national organisations (USPS, > FBI, Military etc) which are all on much larger scales than anything in the > UK. New York City has a larger police force than Canada has army. Costs of administration are not linear. > Is the US incapable of organising and administering things? Blanket proclamations are worthless. I'd say that depends. What is the criteria for deciding what's a success?
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 14:30 "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:C180A92E.4CD31%dbowey(a)comcast.net... > On 11/15/06 9:42 AM, in article > I4CdnXAP4bc-zMbYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:C17FBDDC.4CAE5%dbowey(a)comcast.net... >>> On 11/14/06 3:44 PM, in article 455A54C5.408450FE(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What if the 20 year old person trying to live on >>>>>>> minimum wage needs health care. How can s/he afford it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many doctors will write off the cost of care for people who cannot >>>>>> afford >>>>>> to >>>>>> pay, and start them off with free "samples" of meds. It's rare to >>>>>> hear >>>>>> of >>>>>> someone who is refused the help of a doctor. On the other-hand, a >>>>>> Dr. >>>>>> doesn't have to accept a patient who is abusive or has a known habit >>>>>> of >>>>>> lieing to the Dr. >>>>> >>>>> Fair one, but the system still relies on doctors treating people "out >>>>> of >>>>> the >>>>> goodness of their hearts." >>>> >>>> This used to happen in the UK too before the NHS. It wasn't considered >>>> to >>>> be a >>>> very satisfactory arrangement. >>>> >>>> Graham >>>> >>>> >>> Not satisfactory to whom? >> >> The post war electorate. >> >> > > Piffle! :-)
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 14:32 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:63x6h.6421$Sw1.4642(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:455A8441.4333989A(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>JoeBloe wrote: >>> >>> >>>>There's a big difference between reasonable >>>>profits coupled with a good value product, and gouge-o-matic >>>>practices. One is good old fashioned American capitalism and one is >>>>outright theft. Do you know which is which? I have doubts that you >>>>could. >>> >>>LOL ! >> >>I'd still like to hear his theory of who or what gets to determine what a >>"reasonable profit" is. Unless his answer is "the free market", it sounds >>like price controls, to me. (Ironically, it is the free market that has >>led prices to rise so high.) I've never heard of price controls in pure >>capitalism. > > > "Fair profit" does not exist in pure capitalism either. Fair profit can not > be deemed by anything other than price controls - the market doesn't > recognise it's existence. > > JoeBloe is another Socialist in denial. Reasonable profit is a small margin above the then current cost of money.
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 14:39 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:455A99E1.A3ED916A(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >>>>When you are earning $200 per week, how much can you spare to pay off a >>>>mortgage? What duration are US Mortgages? >>> >>>The longest common mortgage used to be 30 years, with 15 and 10 not being >>>uncommon. >>> >>> >>>>How much of a deposit is normally put down? >>> >>>Typically 10 - 20%, although with the housing market softening, mortgage >>>companies are starting to do really dodgy things, like suckering people >>>that >>>can barely afford it into a mortgage with 0% down. When someone is this >>>financially strapped, it doesn't take much (one appliance failing, for >>>example) for them to get well and truly upside-down, another term for >>>"financially fucked". >> >>I saw the othe day that some UK lenders are now offering 40 yr + mortgages >>and >>crazy income multiples. > > > It is insane. People are borrowing five times their salary - obviously > hoping to get a big bonus or something. I dread to think how they keep up > with the repayments. Banks and credit unions limit debt service ratios to something between 30 and 40% of net income in the US. Retail credit folks, with correspondingly high interest rates, allow up to 50%. Debt service generally includes all the recurring bills one has to pay, including things like telephone, property taxes, credit card debt, etc. The total amount of debt has no bearing. The payment terms do. It seems you need to learn about "money."
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 14:44
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejf0uq$8ss_002(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <GZadnR1moYq8q8fYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ejckhl$8qk_003(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <yt-dne7WCNI5zMrYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>>>In article <455615CC.2B8A045E(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Why ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially >>>>>>>>>>housing. >>>>>>>>>>It eliminates wage competition. People's real productivity is >>>>>>>>>>no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>$10k/year? Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You wouldn't get far on ?5263 over here for sure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I didn't say it was easy and one also has to give up a lot >>>>>>>>of middle class "attitudes" ;-). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Around here you'd pay ~ ?3000 p.a. minimum just for >>>>>>>a very basic rented room ! >>>>>> >>>>>>In the US you can't plan on renting when you stop working. Part >>>>>>of way we live is to spend a part of our wages on a place to live >>>>>>that will become yours after a few years. That way you can >>>>>>eliminate paying rent as part of your living expense. >>>>> >>>>>Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese. >>>>> >>>>>You cant plan on renting anywhere when you stop working. If you are >>>>>earning >>>>>$200 a week, how do you save for a place to live? Where do you live >>>>>while >>>>>you are saving? What do you eat? >>>> >>>>When I said plan, I meant long-term planning. That is why people >>>>buy their own house and start paying the money they earn while >>>>young to pay off the mortgage. When the mortgage is paid off, >>>>they don't pay rent. The plan to stay in the house when >>>>they quit working. >>> >>>When you are earning $200 per week, how much can you spare to pay off a >>>mortgage? What duration are US Mortgages? How much of a deposit is >>>normally >>>put down? >>> >>>I know you meant long term planning, but earning minimum wage does not >>>lend >>>itself to that kind of living. People have to eat. They have to pay bills. >>>They have to be able to save for a deposit. They have to live somewhere >>>while they are waiting to buy their house. Etc. >> >>You don't have to borrow. The Portuguese around here make it a >>family affair. Everybody in the extended family works, and then >>they buy a house for cash. No borrowing. Now the family has >>a house to live in and they begin to save for the next house. >>Eventually everybody has their own house. > > > Blimey. How socialist can you get. Bloody commies need to be kicked out. That's a family, not government. > However it doesn't solve the problem. It is great for people who are lucky > enough to be in that situation, however they are not in the majority. Also > it is not stable, nor predictable. What happens if there is an accident and > a house burns down killing six wage earners. End of the line for the family. > This is still living on an economic knife edge. The important premise when dealing with the sword of Damocles isn't that the sword will fall, only that there is a perception that it might. > I am still waiting for you to explain how the _average_ person on minimum > wage can live in the manner you suggest. You keep coming up with esoteric, > _socialistic_, methods people use to circumvent the impossibility of trying > to live on $200 a week. > Your first "defence" was about people saving to buy their own house, now it > is communal ownership and living. Make your mind up. Ged rid of your middle class attitudes. Then understand that rural America works differently from your UK based worldview. Lucas lives in WV. Betcha he rubs shoulders with people earning under $200 a week and doing just fine. |