Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 19 Nov 2006 20:01 In article <p_2dnd-iTN8-yMbYnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >"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. You may be able to control the profit and not the price. It would be harder to implement than price controls. In the US, the last time price controls were used in a major way was under Nixon. It caused a great deal of trouble and didn't stop the inflation he was trying to hold down. All it really did was stuff like forcing down the quality of US made cars. The car makers couldn't raise the price of the same model so they made them cheaper and left the labels the same. The inflation was masked but it was still there. This was a big part of the problem with the economy under Carter. At that time, the war debt was driving inflation. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Nov 2006 20:12 In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [.....] >The original error starts with you two clowns failing to >appreciate that capitalism has a soul. (Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. > To define a term >"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to >embrace freely and without external (read governmental) >imposition. It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair profit" really means. Is it 7% or 15%? More importantly, who gets to decide and how do you deal, in the short term, with those who choose not to make only a "fair profit"? [....] >You two idiots appreciated the underdog syndrome which >prevails among human beings. The moment that a former >hero is seen doing well financially society as a whole >seeks out the next underdog, abandoning their former >favorite in the blink of an eye. > >This leads to an automatic cap on profits experienced >by business in a capitalistic society. The only >exceptions are in cases where there is patent or >trademark protection, such as we see with Microsoft. The specific example of drug pricing is a better example. Nobody dies because they didn't use a Microsoft OS. >Even then, competitive products emerge. "emerge" implies a length of time. In the case of drugs, you may just have to wait for the patent to run out. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Nov 2006 20:26 In article <8aCdnbqWfskwvMfYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >> I have a 4-room house. If one is healthy, it takes 15 minutes to do >> the usual cleaning. > >Blimey. I am going to cut this out and give it to my wife. Let me know if you live through the experience. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Nov 2006 21:29 In article <85lkl2h9820o3qfuju3897hq2706335epl(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:43:15 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) wrote: > >>If you are going to have an insurance based system and not let the dead >>bodies of those without insurance clutter the streets, you really need to >>make sure everyone has insurance. If you don't then an irresponsible >>fraction of society can become a burden on the rest. > >And unfortunately, that would tend to raise the cost of insurance. Having a portion of the population uninsured does increase the insurance rates in the US. The emergency rooms don't turn away the uninsured. When you or I go to the hospital, they charge us $15 for a bandage because we have insurance. That high price is how they recover the cost of the unisured. >IMO, making insurance premiums mandatory isn't really insurance, it is >a form of taxation. Now, there's nothing wrong with taxation, but >pretending it is something else is a bit disingenuous. You can call it "ping-pong" if you want. The money would not be going to the goverenment so a more accurate term would be "unfunded mandate". > From my POV, I >will insure something if I cannot afford to stand the possibility of >loss. IOW, I don't insure, say, a cup in case I break it. If that >happens I just buy another one. I *do* insure against anything I >cannot afford to replace, such as losing all my possessions in a fire, >because it would cost me too much to replace everything all at once. This is true but in the case of medical insurance there are a huge number of very low odds but very high priced things you are insuring against. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 19 Nov 2006 21:43
In article <ejhpc1$8qk_001(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ejckm3$mf9$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone >>>to have insurance is the latest idiocy. >> >>If you are going to have an insurance based system and not let the dead >>bodies of those without insurance clutter the streets, you really need to >>make sure everyone has insurance. If you don't then an irresponsible >>fraction of society can become a burden on the rest. > >The same problems will still exist. No, the irresponsible people will not longer be a burden. > So everybody has a piece >of paper that says "insurance". That will not create any >infrastructure needed to deliver the services. Agreed but if you wish to hang onto an insurance based system rather than a NHS like system, this is a completely seperate problem. You have moved from the subject of paying for services provided to the providing of services. In an insurance based system, ensuring that the services are provided requires that the payment from the insurance company to the doctor is large enough that market forces will attract providers in. > It's a smoke >and mirrors political game. No, you are confusing solving one of two problems with solving zero problems. >>So long as the US doesn't have a NHS, that's the best you can do. You can >>ensure that the money to pay for the survices is not the problem. You >>can't ensure that services can be had without something like a NHS. > >You can if you stop forcing all medical services to be government- >mandated, govenrment-sponsored and govnerment-funded. How do you expect the services to be provided to those who can't pay for them? > That >forces all decisions to made by bureaucrats and non-medical personnel. No, it does nothing of the kind. The only thing that an insurance company or even the NHS can decide is what to pay for. If I want to pay for something out of my own pocket, my insurance company won't stop me. In England, the NHS doesn't stop people from paying outside the system. The big difference between the insurance and the NHS in this respect is that the insurance company has to take about 20% off the top to pay for its running costs. >Look at how this happened in the HMOs. These are small organizations >compared to one that is a single-payer. In the HMO case, the insurance company is in the business to make a profit. It only provides the care needed to cause there to be a profit. A NHS system is quite different in this regard. [.....] >Doctors are dropping out because they cannot make money to cover >their living expenses; they cannot make judgements without big >brother's OK; they spend 65% of their time doing paper work instead >of providing medical services to each individual patient. They >are forced to dispense medical treatments in a production line >model. That is a problem with the current situation. You are arguing against changing the situation but have just provided a good reason why that system should indeed be changed. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |