Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:32 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. If so, you're so far right, you're a fascist. >Lucas keeps denying it, but all >the words and concepts are there from both of them. Ditto, fascist. >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. > And you have none of democracy. Fairness. Equality. Compassion. >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. > >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. > Why is it lower than any other western nation? >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >delved into why that is. Think about getting care while pregnant. Think about getting a baby care. >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. You think we have more than Europe? >See also >the "Who is the father of my baby" genre television >talk shows of recent times. >
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:22 In article <a2a67$4564821b$4fe77c5$17631(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. > >Medicare management is contracted by the feds. Not to the states. >In the case >of Medicaid it is contracted by the Feds to contractors >called states. The former is private industry following >the rules imposed and supervised by a bureaucracy, the >latter is a bureaucracy. Little to no difference. As I said, and you seem to now understand, that's MedicAID, not MedicARE. > >>>>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. > >The fact that they took my money and held it against my >will now supposedly makes another level of taking my >money "more efficient"? > So you're against all taxes? >Say Hi to Alice for me, willya? >
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:26 In article <c7c7a$456495bf$4fe7432$18128(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:03:42 +0000, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>NHS has not >>>>yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more >>>>decades. >>> >>>60 years is enough to prove the point imho. >>> >>>Graham >> >> >> What all this discussion shows is how any excuse is found/made, by >> some US folks, for not doing something that has been working pretty >> well for a very large number of people and for keeping a system that >> most people WITHIN it as practicing clinicians seem to agree is "in >> crisis" here. >> >> Bizarre. > >Let's start with NHS not having 60 years experience. That >would have given it a birthdate of 1946. > >Next, a goodly number of people living in the FSU and >Warsaw Pact nations say that life was better for them >under the old system than it is being liberated and >responsible for themselves. Lemmings, all. > >Much, but not all, of the "crisis" is as BAH describes >it. The fact that the healthcare system as it exists in >the US has its share of problems is no surprise. Every >business as extensive as healthcare is, that is, touching >virtually *every* member of society, is bound to have some >problems. > >The cries calling for the US to shift into a nationalized >socialist healthcare system is the direct equivalent of >throwing out the baby with the bathwater. > Sigh. A single payer is NOT "socialist healthcare." Socialist insurance, maybe, but I guarantee you, most people think better of the gov't than insurance companies. >It is my opinion that we need the AMA or some other >similar organization to work towards improving what >we have. In my case the healthcare system has been >working well 99% of the time. Not if you're middle class, not if you're the working poor, not if you're unemployed, not if you work for a small business which provides no insurance... >I'm looking for an >improvement on that, not the experiment run amok >that's being proposed. > It's not an experiment. We know from Europe and Canada that system works better than ours -- it covers everybody AND costs less. >We don't have a universal set of state laws in the >US. Why does anyone suppose we'd be ready to >undertake a massive centralized healthcare planning >scheme for those aged birth to 65? It is bad enough >we have one for folks over 65. Yeah, OK, propose doing away with Medicare and see how far you get. >It seems to be >working, but the principles involved aren't anywhere >close to ideal when we consider the principles on >which the US is founded. > Oh BS. The colonists banded together for all kinds of things -- schools, utilities, even common grazing lands. Stuff you'd call "socialism."
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:48 In article <ek47qf$8qk_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ek1qc7$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. Medicare is paid by insurance companies the fed. gov't contracts this to. The states don't enter into it. From Massachusetts itself: "Medicare is run by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. While CMS operates the Medicare program, the Social Security Administration determines Medicare eligibility. The rules for Medicare are the same all over the country." >> >>> >>>> 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. > Right-wingers should know. >> >>>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. The 3% is administrative costs as a % of money spent. That's the way your state insurance office ranks private insurance companies too. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:39
In article <ba10e$4565827a$4fe7682$23596(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <4cb81$45647cf4$4fe77c5$17514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> [....] > >>>"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. > >In every universal employment scheme this became an artform. >Sometimes the choice is whether to have them show up for >work and shuffle papers all day and pay them, or pay them >to sit at home because they are unemployed. > >The problem was discovered at Amoco Oil headquarters in >Chicago a few years back, by the CEO, who cut 200 management >level jobs out of the corporation as nonproductive paper >shuffling that provided nothing of value to the corporate >enterprise. > >So he terminated them en masse. The burden shifted, at least >for a while, from the private sector to the public sector >as those 200 collected unemployment. It woud be intereresting >to know how many in that class ever did find employment again. > >> 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. > >They consumed, but the money, representing wealth, has passed >through. The goods and services they purchased with the money >they earned adds value back into the economy. > >All well designed (or evolved) economic systems are able >to absorb inefficiencies which are always impossible to >completely eliminate. If a government works hard to >eliminate inefficiencies, then what value are the people >supervising that effort adding to the economy? It becomes >a snake consuming itself. > > >>>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. > >Precisely the concept I had in mind. > >>>>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. > >Lots of room for disagreement there. I know men for >whom it is the best exercise possible. I don't golf >myself, I'm generally a lot more active. > >> The CEOs will leave a bunch of the money in the UK > > and bring nothing back to the US in return for it. > >And yet I know a highly successful salesman who uses >golfing as a very effective setting for closing rather >large, in his area of business, deals. The fact that >they're out on the green instead of the office with >hot and cold running secretaries bringing them scotch >and coffee is, in the scheme of things, a small thing. > >I can't imagine a group of go-getter executives passing >up the opoportunity to talk shop while enjoying themselves >in the company of their peers. > >The US will be a little poorer as a result. > >"Wealth" transfers to Scotland. Scotland doesn't burn >it, but spends it, either at home or abroad. In the >meantime people in Scotland are working, adding value. > >>>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. > >You do know I won't do this, it is far too much work. If >you've been involved in business you recognize cost >elements that are universally common. As BAH mentioned, >collections is a big expense. If you were to take the amount >of money spent by Medicare each year, and on that basis >allocate the % expenses incurred by IRS collection mechanism >that lands in the medicare pocket, you'd have a handle on >what that part actually costs but remains unreported as a >medicare expense. Then there's auditing by the GAO, also >unreported as a medicare expense, and the cost of mailings >for which postage is absorbed by the USPS. The figure for private insurance companies doesn't necessarily include the cost of selling policies and collecting premiums either. And it costs the IRS not a penny more to collect the money which goes to Medicare, since people are already filing tax returns. The USPS doesn't give the gov't a free ride on postage either. "Agencies must reimburse the United States Postal Service (USPS) the equivalent amount of postage and fees due for penalty mail service they receive..." > >There are lots of similar line items. Either you accept the >point, or you don't. I have neither the time nor the >energy required to flesh this out beyond the obvious >logical sorts of expenses I've mentioned above. Neither of which is valid. The IRS pays postage, something you didn't even bother to check out. I found it in 10 seconds using Google. > >>>>... 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. > >Here's the point. If US insurance is so bad, and government run >healthcare is better then why are the retirees complaining? > Something is better than nothing. >BTW, they're not being screwed now. Their screwing happened >when their employer talked them into lower pay based on >promises of future redundant healthcare schemes. > >> 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. > >It seems to me the VA system more closely resembles NHS than >medicare does. > >>>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. > >The point is, insurance isn't "a bad thing" as so many >in this discussion want to make it. > It is if it's unaffordable. >> [....] > >>>>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. > >I wouldn't call that evolution. > >> 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. > >I don't think so. I would like to find a study that compares >median healthcare costs to a family as a % of median income >today compared to 1950, which is before the leading edge of >the growth of health insurance hit, if I recall things correctly. You'd have to factor in all the diseases we can diagnose and treat today that people just died from back then, plus increased life expectancy, plus increased drug costs... > >Somehow we'd have to factor in all the new very expensive >equipment and procedures that weren't available in 1950 >but are commonly used today. > Exactly. |