Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 17:43 Don Bowey wrote: > On 11/17/06 10:30 AM, in article a1751$455dffd6$4fe7457$4012(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>Don Bowey wrote: >> >> >>>On 11/17/06 2:00 AM, in article susql21c3s3edj687bkq220q8alrlm7ns9(a)4ax.com, >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>> >>>>In my area here, most dentists (well, that situation _is_ changing as >>>>some dentists opt for Kaiser or large corporate service providers like >>>>Willamette Dental, for example) are in private practice. While some >>>>of them can and do make a whole lot of money (I overheard the CPA of >>>>one saying he'd made 4.5 million 'the last year') and may have a staff >>>>of some modest size, the insurance companies are a lot bigger and a >>>>lot more profitable -- we're talking billions of real dollars and not >>>>mere nickels, by comparison. I have no fear at all that insurance >>>>companies are "behind the dentist 8-ball" on any score at all. It's a >>>>game, if both sides play it as hard as I'm sure they do, that the >>>>insurance companies are way out ahead in winning. >>>> >>>>However, there is a 3rd party, which is the consuming public. With >>>>the really big boys playing (insurance companies) against the somewhat >>>>smaller boys (the dentists in private practice and the dental >>>>associations), the really insignificant ants that are getting stomped >>>>on are the rest of us who are dust by comparison and are only needed >>>>at all as justification for the cash flows the other two are fighting >>>>over. >>>> >>>>We lose. >>>> >>>>The way we do medical and dental insurance in the US is an unmitigated >>>>disaster and it is sucking the strength of this country dry for the >>>>profits of a few. We are bent over and on our knees already under the >>>>weight of it. The system is going to topple of its own weight because >>>>the rest of us just can't carry the burden much longer. >>> >>> >>>The government sure isn't helping anyone. >>> >>>Unfortunately, Prez. Bush's screw-the-people organization got the age >>>discrimination laws changed so they could, indeed, discriminate against >>>older people. Having done that, they permitted businesses the renege on >>>their medical care coverage obligations to their retired people, forcing >>>retirees onto Medicare. So now, medical care that was a business financial >>>responsibility, is now a burden on the Public. The medical benefit was >>>*not* a gift to it's retirees, as some would have everyone believe, but was >>>bargained for in lieu of higher wages. It was a LEGAL obligation to the >>>people who had been in their employ. Many businesses under-funded their >>>pension and benefit plans, so they certainly supported the law change. >>>Other businesses responsibly did fully fund their obligation, and Bush made >>>it possible for them to pocket the funds. Guess which way They swung. >>> >> >>Anyone who bargains away curent wages in exchange for >>unenforcable (read "not in their control") promises >>of future services was a fool from the moment they >>hired on in such conditions. >> >>Don't blame Bush for this one. It was easily predictable >>and *had* to happen. > > > Why did it have to happen? Because when there's money available to be grabbed, it will be grabbed. The promise of lifelong funding of health insurance in competition with medicare, which was funded by the individual contributions all one's working life, was pie in the sky nonsense from day 1 on. The City of Chicago is facing the same dilemma as your employer was. > The plans should have been properly funded by business. Why should the > government have "forgiven" that debt and thrust it on the public trough? It isn't thrust on the public. You've been paying taxes and social security all your working life. That's what's funding your Medicare. > It's fortunate there was no way for them to steal 401k plan money, and so > far, my pension is safe. You're thinking like the average American without taking lessons from history. What happens if we land a double digit (or worse) inflation? No matter what you have funded, what is its value in just a few years? Don't forget about compounding. Neither you nor I are in charge of inflation. There were many published stories of what happened to pensioners in Europe after the end of WW2. We just can't control everything. >>I've been acused of being paranoid over such matters, >>but look at your results. I'll live with the accusation >>and smile all the way to the bank. > In most businesses if one opted out of the medical plan, they did not > receive more wages or salary, so there was no reason to opt out. Your > situation was apparently unique. I didn't take jobs with such hooks. If business A was offering that sort of job with hooks, then I was equally useful to their competition, business B or perhaps C. I'd take the one with the best cash offer. > I'm sure all bargaining now takes into account Medicare and portability of > benefits. It has to. In the 1990's I knew a woman who contracted an uninsurable condition while she was in employ of a firm who wanted to get rid of her just as badly as she wanted to move along, but they were stuck with one another. Portability liberated them both. > I do blame Bush and the administration's unwarranted give-aways to business. > I'm pro-business, but not at the expense of reasonableness. Take an in depth look at the airline industry. When markets change the best laid plans of mice and men usually suffer much more than was ever anticipated. At the same time, take a look at government's complicity in the airline problems. The look at the effect computers and the internet have on the US Mail which has been a great source, now diminishing, of income for the airlines. Remember FTD? Floral Telegraph Delivery? Today you look up the local floral biz, telephone, and place your order for delivery directly, paying by credit card. There are so many things that have changed in your lifetime and mine that I look at business promises made in the 1960's and have to laugh at their impossibility today. > How can you ignore his part in his administration's give-aways? Because the situation that led to the present circumstances isn't so simple. It was either allow employers to evade the promises they made or face
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 18:07 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <a0f2a$455ddc22$4fe7798$2513(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <455C9D51.CF6E6D34(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>[ regarding buying a house on minimum wage ] >>>>>>>And if you don't have a large extended family ( most ppl don't ) what >>> >>>then ? >>> >>> >>>>>>There are many ways to accomplish things. It does require setting >>>>>>a prioity list. If you want to buy a house, you don't spend money >>>>>>on buying pu-pu platters every night. >>>>> >>>>>It begins with simple things, like buying and learning >>>>>to use 24 cent stamps. >>>> >>>>Both of you seem to think one can affiord a house by saving *pennies*. >>> >>> >>>That's how it's done. >> >>Take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care >>of themseves. It is a mindset, not merely a method. >> > > > OK, you save $1 a day by not eating out. How long does it take you to save up > a 20% down payment on a $100,000 house? Read it again. It is a mindset, not a method. A young woman I met in Philadelphia in the 1960's conducted her own experiment on which was cheaper, to take public transport to and from work, or to walk. In her case it cost less in shoe replacement costs alone to take the bus. In our consumerist society most of us are wasteful without ever giving it a moments thought. Do I buy a $200 overcoat that will outlast me or do I buy a $50 one that I'll have to replace because it looks shabby and is falling off me in 3 years? Please remember that usually the poor pay more because they are either unable to buy well or don't know enough to. Making bad choices doesn't have to apply to everyone all the time. The difference is enough to eventually buy a house. As far as 20% down on a 100K house goes, you're looking at the problem thinking inside the box. There are many ways to get around that requirement, but you might not be able to buy the house you'd prefer to buy. The point is to get into owning *a* house, because that's essential. The first house I bought I only put down 4%, and it was such a nice house and such a good deal that I ended up living there for 27 years. Heck, I paid more then that downpayment for a good used 7 year old Ford station wagon. >>>>Do get real. Your answers are quite pathetic and reminiscent >>>>of the worst excesses of the Thatcher era here. >>>Heaven forbid that people take responsibility for themselves >>>and what they do. >>Where would Big Brother be then? <shivers>
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 18:11 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejk95m$8qk_002(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <455B25BF.2BE7B527(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>Which is why an 'American NHS' would need stong leadership to push it >>>through. >> >>You still do not understand how the US works. > > > And, based on some of your other posts in this thread, neither do you. > > >>Would it be >>possible to push your UK approach through the EU and have >>all members accept it? > > > You have to remember the NHS was something the electorate wanted government > to provide. It was not forced upon people. > > Judging by some of the anti-NHS posts by Americans here, I think the real > problem is that Americans are just too stubborn to know what is good for > themselves and will refuse it because the Businesses which make the most > profits can pay for the most advertisements. > > Sadly people like you, with your head in the sand and your obstinate refusal > to listen to anything which disagrees with your pre-conceived viewpoint > would be the main obstacle against providing a decent, available to all, > nationally controlled health service. > > I am sure you are happy that there are people suffering, as long as you can > keep the evil [insert whatever imaginary thing you are railing against at > the moment here] at bay. People will always suffer. Your NHS doesn't prevent that in all cases.
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 18:13 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:4vi7h.4263$yE6.2248(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ejk9av$8qk_003(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <6gH6h.25564$TV3.23860(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ejf56j$8qk_003(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>>In article <5hk6h.25029$TV3.4028(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ejccrn$8ss_006(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <BN06h.5439$IR4.708(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:45586F70.5FF100EE(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth >>>>>>>>>>of housecleaning and they get it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They do ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I'm sure they wouldn't here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's certainly not the norm in the US. It might be $50, (I've heard >>>>>>>>smaller >>>>>>>>number, in the $30 - $40 range) but it's not for 15 minutes >>>>>>>>work--typically >>>>>>>>it is for cleaning a whole house, which, including vacuuming, >>>>>>>>mopping, >>>>>>>>cleaning the loo, is probably more like an hour or two. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have a 4-room house. If one is healthy, it takes 15 minutes to do >>>>>>>the usual cleaning. >>>>>> >>>>>>Once again, we see extrapolation of barely relevant experience well >>>>>>beyond >>>>>>the bounds of extrapolability. >>>>>> >>>>>>1) I'm sure that anybody that pays $50 to have their house cleaned has >>>>>>more >>>>>>than a 4 room house. >>>>> >>>>>And you would be wrong. There is a minimum charge around here. >>>> >>>>OK, let me put it another way. Nobody who owns a 4-room house is going >>>>to >>>>pay $50 to get their house cleaned. >>> >>>Then you are wrong. I did. >> >>*You* did? PT Barnum was absolutely right. I suspect the person who did >>the cleaning for you saw your "thinking" ability, and made you for an easy >>mark. > > > Capitalism at work :-) There are times that we pay a lawyer of doctor more per minute that she did the cleaner, and get less in exchange. Your criticisms are misplaced, as usual.
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 18:15
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejkdtt$8qk_028(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <455C9CB7.A22D3183(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: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>You need to get away from the concept of commercial >>>>>>>insurance. With that model there is no drive to save money. >>>>>> >>>>>>*I* do not need to get away from the concept. I am telling you >>>>>>what our Democrats have in mind when they talk about a single-payer >>>>>>system. >>>>> >>>>>What the Democrats 'have in mind' isn't the only possibilty ! >>>> >>>>How do you know this? You have already shown a misunderstanding >>>>of the US Constitution, the Federal medical programs, tax >>>>laws, and how we work. >>> >>>I have made no comments about half those things even in this thread. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>Remember, the NHS is not insurance. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am telling you that your type of NHS would never be >>>>>>implemented here >>>>> >>>>>I can accept its chances may be slim due to vested interests but that's >> >>not >> >>>>>the point I was trying to make. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>nor would it work. >>>>> >>>>>Just explain *why* it wouldn't work. You keep making this assertion on >>>>>the >>>>>basis of vague notions. >>>> >>>>I have already told you. Yours is based on small business models. >>> >>>No it isn't. The NHS is one of the largest organisation in the world ! >>> >>> >>> >>>>A single-payer in the US cannot have that; it is too big--3000 miles >>>>wide 1700 miles long. You cannot administer distribution system >>>>using a small business model while keeping the decisions central. >>> >>>Then how do the likes of FedEx and DHL function *worldwide* ? >> >>They cannot deliver individual service. They do not repackage, >>recolor, nor remake the package nor the contents. There is >>no comparision to carrying a package from point A to point B >>and fixing a single individual's ailment. > > > Learn how businesses work. They provide a different service. They manage to > get a package anywhere in the world. The package then does it's "job" and > gets opened. > > A nationalised health service only requires that the central control gets a > doctor anywhere in the country. The doctor then does his job and makes > people well again. Doctors don't make people "well again." The best they can do is delay death for a while longer. > Your attempt to use this analogy to support _your_ claims is wrong. > > |