Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 22:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > >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. Yet more baseless assertions. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 22 Nov 2006 22:56 In article <6dd17$45646b74$4fe74f0$17139(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ek1kpf$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >[.....] > >>> It is also >>>accepted by the populace because your basic tenets are based on >>>a socialism. The US is not. > >> BTW: I am not from the UK not am I there right now so I really can't >> speak to what the tenets are for them. > >> I believe that Canada and the UK accept the NHS system because they know >> it works. > >If we hadn't gotten past FDR as we have, we'd have some >sort of an NHS as well. What's forgotten is that in most >instances the US is the leader, not the follower. Yes, it is strange the areas in which the US finds its self behind. The US basically invented the auto industry and now finds its self lagging. This may be a natural ebb and flow. The US may decide to invent something new on the funding of healtcare and retake the lead in that area. [...] >Society, governments, and politics, are all long term >experiments. How long did it take for the FSU with its >"wonderful new" system of politics to fail? NHS has not >yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more >decades. Neither has a US economy running with fiat money been tested for long enough. I expect that, that is a much greater rick of failure than the NHS of the UK. >excerpt follows: > >"Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private >individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and >transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. Those arguing for the NHS need not be socialists, but to take the socialists side just for a moment: The above statement is not what many socialists assume. Many socialists would claim that the choice is between having a few wealthy persons determine how power is used or having elected representives do so. They do not believe that the power is extinguished at all but rather that it is safer to place it in the hands of the elected than the merely lucky. > What >they overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in >the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but >infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power >formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created >infinitely Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to have confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of local control. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 23:05 unsettled wrote: > Our post offices are also open till 5PM in most places. Is that supposed to be some kind of special US achievement ? Ours stay open later than that ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 22 Nov 2006 23:11 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > A kid I know has worked at McDonalds for two years and is still a selfish, > > self centred idiot with no concept of the value of money, nor the social > > responsibilities that go with being an adult. He wouldn't know how to save > > for a pair of socks, let alone the future. He is a blight on society despite > > being 20 years old and having worked since he left school. > > > > Just shows anecdotal evidence can cut both ways. > > What is shows is that T.Wake believes most people > need keepers, hence Marxist socialism. Good Lord ! Talk about leaping to conclusions ! Graham
From: Ken Smith on 22 Nov 2006 23:20
In article <4cb81$45647cf4$4fe77c5$17514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> 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? It isn't the money so much as the wealth. Money is a "score keeping system" used to allow the flow of wealth through the economy. I am pointing this out because increases in the money supply can happen in times of stagflation where wealth is in fact decreasing. The money spent on paying people to push needless paper around is the best sort of example. The person gets a days pay but produces nothing as a result. That person will consume things from the economy but not add any goods or services to it. So in effect that person has destroyed a bit of wealth. > >> If the government builds infrastructure this is generally not a drag on >> the economy. > >Depends on the effectiveness of the infrastructure. The "generally" was intended to leave room for th esilly bridges to nowhere. > >> 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 used golf in my example because it is a truly useless activity. The CEOs will leave a bunch of the money in the UK and bring nothing back to the US in return for it. The US will be a little poorer as a result. >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. Please provide a list of these costs or a cite so I can look them up. >> ... 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? Huh???? I don't see how you got from one place to the other. Some retirees getting cheated is an unrelated issue. Note that the "look like" was not meant as "exactly like". I would also not suggest one that is exactly like the VA system as it is today. >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. You want more coverage. That is fine with me. [....] >> 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. Private enterprise evolves very well indeed. So do viruses. Merely having the propery of evolving is not enough. The direction of evolution needs to be a direction that favors us. In healthcare funding, it appears that private enterprise is evolving to consume all the wealth. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |