Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 17:08 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:05:36 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >> >>>My own brother, some years back, was almost refused care at a full >>>care hospital, Meridian Park, just off of the Nyberg Rd exit of I5, >>>south of Portland and Tigard. It was an emergency case, he'd >>>swallowed broken glass and was in severe pain at the time. But he had >>>no insurance and those at the desk simply refused to let him talk to a >>>doctor about it. It was only because there was an attorney in the >>>waiting room, who stood up and shouted at the receptionist that he >>>would personally bring suit against them unless they helped my brother >>>see a doctor right away, that they capitulated and let him speak to a >>>doctor. When I got down there (I hadn't been called until after that >>>event), the doctor told me that if it had been as little as just two >>>more hours, my brother would certainly have been dead. They got to >>>him in time, though. But not easily. >> >>That's shocking. >> >>Graham > > > It is. I'm sure it's not the only such case in the US, either. It > should never happen, at all. I certainly empathize. However, where human systems are concerned there are failures that have some tears shed over them, and everything goes on as it has, because human systems are never 100%. Check under UK's NHS, for example, how many die annually of a superbug which came into being in hospital settings. The obvious acceptable number should be 0% failure in such cases. The facts are somewhat different, and it will not be fixed. Neither will most of the shortfalls of the medical care business in the USA. The reasoning in both cases is similar.
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 17:11 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:96fb5$455b673d$4fe757a$19289(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >> 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. Irrelevant, since if anything, an NHS is socialist, not communist. In any case, so you consider 50 million (the size of the UK, where the NHS works well) small scale, but 300 million is large. Seems a tad arbitrary. >> 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. So? > Costs of administration are not linear. Yeah, they go down at larger sizes. It's called "economy of scale". >> Is the US incapable of organising and administering things? > > Blanket proclamations are worthless. ....says the King of Blanket Proclamations. > I'd say that depends. What is the criteria for deciding > what's a success? There are several that have been mentioned as regards an NHS. I think we have a basis for defining in possible mode of failure--i.e., the current health care fiasco in this country. ERic Lucas
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 17:14 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4dc84$455b6880$4fe757a$19289(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:63x6h.6421$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. Define "small". More importantly, who gets to decide for the country? It's starting to sound like "price controls". How exactly is that capitalist? Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 17:16 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:CQL6h.10662$yl4.6644(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:uIadnVJvIvWKysbYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> In the UK we are heading towards longer duration mortgages. One of my >> employees has just bought a house with a 35 year mortgage (he is 25). The >> mind boggles at what people are having to do to get a place to live now. > > I'm not sure I would have put it that way, at least for the US (I assume > some of what I'm about to say is similar in the UK). > > There is almost an entitlement attitude about home purchases that has > developed in this country. A greater percentage than ever of our > population is now homeowners...or to put it another way, some modest > fraction of the people now buying homes in the US would have been > considered financially unable to buy a home, had they been in their > current situation 30 years ago. Much like with credit cards, the financial > companies have found that they have a gold mine, and the more people they > can draw in, the better. There is almost zero risk on their shoulders, > since they own the home and can foreclose when things get uncomfortable > (lack of maintenance, missed payments, etc.) Thus, they have come up with > terms to draw more and more people in...100% mortgages, ridiculous income > multiples, that sort of thing. I happen to be of the mind that it's those > own peoples' fault for being suckered into something they cannot afford. > On the other hand, it's very difficult for someone who does not own a home > to understand exactly how much it costs (I sure didn't when I first > bought). The financial institutions used to be good at weeding out those > who are likely to go under by making the multiple so low. However, > they've discovered that that's not in their best financial interest > anymore. There's now really nothing by which non-homeowners can really > gauge if they can really afford it or not, except what they see their > peers doing. > > Regardless of the effect on these people personally, in the bigger > picture, it's not good for society as a whole. This is especially true > considering how Congress recently modified the bankruptcy laws. Well, I agree with the majority of what you have said here - especially about people "expecting" to own their own homes - and it is the same in the UK. One issue in the UK is that, especially in recent years, people are looking at property as a "pension plan" where they buy a house, pay it of when they get to (eg) 50 and then when they retire they downsize the house and live on the "massive profits" they anticipate getting. The problem is the housing market is far from sustainable. Also, as house prices have gone through the roof - so has rent. Some insane examples are a three bedroom flat (apartment) in Knightsbridge which goes for ?7000 per week but in the "real world" a three bedroom semi-detached house will go for around ?900 per month. It amazes me how any one affords their accommodation charges (rent or mortgage) today.
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 17:17
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4f2aa$455b6b56$4fe757a$19388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >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. Well, actually, no, I've moved. Still have the house, though. Contrary to what you seem to think, the poverty line in WV is similar to the rest of the country, and that $200/wk is well below it. People making that amount do not "[do] just fine" in WV or anywhere. They exist in squallor. Eric Lucas |