Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 08:22 In article <542fc$45657734$4fe7682$23423(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Let me expand a little more on part of this: > >unsettled wrote: > > BAH wrote: > >>> I simply don't tend to write about agreeable stuff because >>> that doesn't need work. > >> Overall, methinks you're being far too kind. When >> a pack gets into a feeding frenzy, they reinforce >> one another against "troubling dissent" (troubling >> to their commonly held PC value systems) by a sort >> of backslapping agreement. IMO that makes them seem >> to be "right" and their opposition "wrong." > >In stepping back and looking at the entire thread since >I came into it, I've come to an even more distressing >view of why this thread has been as hot as it has been. > >Lucas and Wake are, without a doubt, agitator class >Marxist socialists. Lucas keeps denying it, but all >the words and concepts are there from both of them. >Neither of them has any real depth in the things they >write. I think that's because they're dealing out of a >backdrop of recitational knowledge of their beliefs, >learned much as we learned the times tables as children >without a really good handle on numbers systems and >all those associated concepts. The problem, of course, >is that they'll never progress past the point they've >achieved. > >Like so many things that are only superficially >understood by them, they're adament that their entire >scheme fits together and works well and will argue the >subject to death while only scratching the surface, >steadfastly denying the validity of any deeper analysis. >They come to the discussion lacking a working >understanding of economic theory. This is the situation with what is called the intelligensia. I think they follow the current trends so they will belong to the largest pack. This is their method of survival. > >Ken Smith stands in opposition to a lot of stuff, but >he's willing to look past the superficial aspects. His >disagreements are generally honorable so it is a pleasure >discussing issues with him. Yes. Serious discussions require disagreement. > >I'll start thinking that the healthcare system is failing >when we start to see a significant decline in US life >expectancy. So far, it seems to me, that has been increasing. Wait until our generation starts to require medical services. The delivery system is broken. We also are no longer training people sanitation. This kind of work has been done by people who are invisible to the shoppers. > >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >delved into why that is. It's possible that medical technology is too good. > Given the number of abortions >we do in this country I wonder if some of them aren't >simply a cruel form of post partum abortion. What is odd is that I don't hear about babies born dead. That used to be common in my youth. I do hear about extraordinary treatments to ensure full term pregnancies. > See also >the "Who is the father of my baby" genre television >talk shows of recent times. The real life soap operas? Do you really believe all of those shows are true? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 08:30 In article <ek1qc7$ucf$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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. Did that change? In the 80s, doctors around here were not taking any new patients with Medicare because Dukakis was delaying payouts so he could bloat his budget to make it seem Mass. wasn't in as much debt. > >> >>> 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! I am not even trying to say that those figures are not out. I believe you that there exist reports that give those figures. Stats can be slanted while still not lying. > >>Just collecting >>the premiums is costly. >> > >Deducted from social security checks. Now think about all the money spent on payroll deductions that prop up the measly amount deducted from the Social Security checks. None of these costs are included in your 3% figure because it is the employers who pay it. > >>> >>>> >>>>> 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? What do you call a loss? If the development costs are not included then there can be a profit. Haven't you ever considered why divisions are created to do this business rather than departments? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 08:32 In article <456481AB.D9E20023(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > 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. > >An 'NHS' doesn't have these problems. Once again, I'll ask you to think about administering your NHS to all of Europe. That is how the US has to work. We essentially 50 countries, each has its own politics, economy and different priority lists. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 08:35 In article <4564824B.9E62E7A9(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I hope he finds something that he would pay his >> employer so he can do the work. > >You think ppl should pay for the 'privilege' of working now ? Some of us worked at places where we would have been happy to pay to work. We didn't tell the bosses that, but our need to do the work was greater than the need to make pots of money. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 23 Nov 2006 08:43
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> I hope he finds something that he would pay his > >> employer so he can do the work. > > > >You think ppl should pay for the 'privilege' of working now ? > > Some of us worked at places where we would have been happy > to pay to work. I rather think that's simply a turn of phrase only ! Graham |