Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 10:51 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >>unsettled wrote: > >>> Ken Smith wrote: > >>> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone > >>> >>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If > >>> >>not it is not "fair". > >> > >>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one > >>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or > >>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for > >>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't > >>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did > >>for the same journey and ticket. > >> > >>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not > >>compelled to buy it. > > > >Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where > >unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. > > Have you considered that people should plan ahead? Have you considered that we don't live in an ideal world ? Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 22 Nov 2006 05:24 In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ejv29u$vbq$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <1164101047.711452.220630(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>> Ken Smith wrote: >>>> > In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, >>>> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>>> >>says... >>>> >> >>>> >>>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. >>>> >> >>>> >>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone >>>> >>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If >>>> >>not it is not "fair". >>> >>>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >>>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >>>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >>>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >>>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >>>for the same journey and ticket. >>> >>>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >>>compelled to buy it. >> >>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where >>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. > >Have you considered that people should plan ahead? > >/BAH > Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn "plan ahead"!
From: Lloyd Parker on 22 Nov 2006 05:29 In article <ek1g07$8qk_001(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ejv2k6$vbq$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ejuug2$8qk_001(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>>What percentage do you think the government has to take? >>>> >>>>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. >>> >>>I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The >>>state percentage also has to be included. >> >>There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. > >No, I'm not. Who sends the money? Not the feds. The feds >send the money to the state who then disburses it. That is >two political levels of bureaucracy. No, that's Medicaid. Medicare is handled solely by the feds. > >> It is a fact >>that Medicare has a lower % of administrative costs than private insurers. > >I'm sure you believe all those so-called facts. Google it, damn it! >Just collecting >the premiums is costly. > Deducted from social security checks. >> >>> >>>> This is much less than an >>>>insurance company. I am sure that part of the reason that both Canada and >>>>the UK pay less for "health care" is because their governments require a >>>>smaller overhead than the 20% of the US insurance companies. The 20% >>>>alone isn't enough to explain it because they actually pay about 60% not >>>>80% of what the US pays. >>> >>>They pay "less" because 1. less is provided 2. it a monopoly and >>>can coerce medical suppliers to discount their prices. >>> >>>Let us take the latter. Those companies have to recoup their >>>costs or they go out of business. At the moment, the US is >>>paying. What will the rest of you in this world do if the >>>US stops paying the costs of development by also limiting >>>prices? >>> >>> >> >>Why would these companies sell their products in a country if they were not >>making a profit? > >Market presence. You get one product on the market and that >makes it easier for the next product and the next. But they know all their products are going to have price controls. You're saying they sell at a loss so they can get their next product approved to sell at a loss? > > > >>>> In the insurance case it is keeping >>>>the shareholders happy that is the goal. The NHS is a very bad system but >>>>nearly as bad as all the other options. >>> >>>NHS is a social system. It will eventually deteriorate as all social >>>systems do. >>>> >> >>Society is a social system. Civilization is a social system. > >Yes. To thrive requires innovation and trade. If the trade >stagnates, it takes less than 50 years to cease to exist. >Think about it. Trade routes become unsafe so trade rapidly >becomes a local activity. New ideas never move out of the >neighborhood. This new knowledge can disappear with one >flu bug. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 22 Nov 2006 05:34 In article <ek1kpf$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ejv4gs$1lb$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <7c99c$45630644$4fe7571$7869(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>Dealing with medical billing has become its own >>>separate discipline. The physician and dentist is >>>forced to hire a non-medical billing specialist >>>even for a one man office. >> >>Yes, this is another inefficience of the current system. At least they >>should standardize the forms and make much of it electronic. There is >>very little reason for the billing information to travel on paper any >>more. > >Well, there is a good reason. Accountability. If the patient >isn't copied, only the computers know who is getting charged for >what. > > >>[....] >>>> I did not think that they had the classification of insurance. I though >>>> the whole point of creating this kind of business was to avoid >>>> the constraints of insurance laws. >>> >>>Kennedy - March 3, 1978: >>> >>> "As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find >>>this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, >>>proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition >>>from organized medicine. And just a few years ago, congressional >>>advocates of HMOs faced an administration which was long on HMO >>>rhetoric, but very short on action." >>> >>>Kennedy - May 15, 2001 >>> >>> "It is time to end the abuses of managed care that victimize thousands >>>of patients each day. It is time for doctors and nurses and patients to >>>make medical decisions again, not insurance company accountants. The >>>American people deserve prompt action, and we intend to see that they >>>get it." >>> >>>http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html >>> >>>Partial list of abuses listed at the end.[1] >> >>BAH doesn't so WWW stuff so I've left your quote at the end in place. >> >> >>The fact that the US's system of payment for healthcare doesn't work very >>well is well documented. Tinkering around the edges won't fix it. > >What makes you think that these problem will be fixed with an NHS? >It will not. If anything, the problems will become worse. I don't >why this happens but it does with legislation; it seems to always >happen when the legislation is passed for the "good of the people". >This sound bite always gets me suspicious about what is really >getting passed and I try to find out how much it will cost me. >> >>[...] >>>> This is what is very, very odd in this thread. This underlying >>>> belief system is creeping to the point of insanity. That's >>>> why I keep thinking lemmings and wonder if it's biochemical. >>> >>>Fanatical religious. They buy into an entire system rather >>>than to analyze each individual component. This allows >>>insane components to take a ride with the rest, some of >>>which might actually make some sense at the end of the day. >> >>What the folks on your side are seeing is the same as what the folks on >>the other side also see. Your side says "socialism is bad" and then "NHS >>is socialism" and then won't look at how it operates to see why it manages >>to do better than the US's system. You reject the whole adn accuse those >>others of accepting the whole. > >I know why it manages to do "better". It is local. You do not >have a large geographic distribution to deal with. It is also >accepted by the populace because your basic tenets are based on >a socialism. The US is not. ><snip - cleanup> > >/BAH Right-wing extremism rears its head. The US wasn't founded on fascism either.
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 11:38
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ek1kol$8qk_001(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>It depends on tax revenues to stay operational. If a large >>percentage of taxes go to one social program, it isn't used >>to startup new money makers. EVentually, there isn't any >>tax base. So the government has to take over the running >>of each sector as it stops working. > No, this is not right. It is if nonproductive government spending plus > other nonproductive spending gets too large that this happens. The money > used for things like the miltiary and a fraction of what is used for > health care fall into this class. It doesn't really matter if the > spending is public or private if only matters that it is nonproductive > spending. Much of the spending that goes on in Los Vegas is dollar for > dollar as much of a drag as any other. Right now there is a large amount > of nonproductive spending in the healthcare system. You pay for this if > you buy a US made product in a US store. This drives down the economy. > The NHS model eats up less money and thus is less of a drag on the > economy. "Nonproductive spending in the healthcare system..." What happens to the money? Someone destroys it? > If the government builds infrastructure this is generally not a drag on > the economy. Depends on the effectiveness of the infrastructure. > When the CEOs of a bunch of companies go golfing in > Scotland, it is a drag on the US economy. Not so simple. How's our balance of trade with UK? >>I don't care how many web site say this number. It's too low. >>Just the collection costs of the premiums would be 3% or greater. > Do you have any evidence for this besides your assumptions? There are > lots of well documented sites out there where you can see the real > numbers. While the costs for administration of Medicare are repeatedly reported to be ~3% this doesn't include many expense factors which private industry must report. It is another of the many lying by statistics gambits used in such cases. >>>I have not suggested that the NHS is the only answer. I have pointed out >>>that the system the US has selected is much worse than the NHS system. >>And I'm telling you that the system the US has will be a template >>for what it would do if we are forced to eat a single-payer system. > ... and I'm saying you are wrong on this, but even assuming that you are > right that a US single payer system will look like medicare, this would be > better than the current situation. Then why are retirees who had private insurance paid for by their former employers complaining so bitterly when those programs are terminated? Why do people like me buy supplemental insurance? Because I am insuring against the possibility that a severe illness not well covered by Medicare can bankrupt my estate. >>>>This is what is very, very odd in this thread. This underlying >>>>belief system is creeping to the point of insanity. That's >>>>why I keep thinking lemmings and wonder if it's biochemical. >>>Now you are falling right off the rails. Others are pointing out >>>documented facts that should make you change your mind on a single matter. >>>For some reason you have such a strong aversion to changing your mind on >>>this one subject that you see this as evidence of the end of life as we >>>know it. This is getting into tinfoil hat land. >>Not evidence but an indication of a thinking trend that will lead >>to results previous civilizations have experienced. > Fiat money and irrigated agriculture lead to the downfall of all > civilizations. The record is full of such examples. We are doomed, > doomed I tell you. Every system fails eventually unless it evolves. Private enterprise does a much better job of evolving than massive governments because you can have partial failures of private enterprise, but when a government topples, an impromptu praetorian guard notwithstanding, it all falls apart. |