Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 18:14 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. I always did! >>>>>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? That's a reach. Did you hurt your back doing that? Still appropriate: >>Say Hi to Alice for me, willya? >>
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 18:16 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <8381b$456480b7$4fe77c5$17599(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ek1fi2$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>This is >>>>the road to dictatorship and communism. >> >>>A commie under every bed. Wondered when the far right mantra would emerge. >> >>Funny thing, we have an almost meaningless piece of a curve >>describing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is >>dubbed a second order polynomial predictive of ecological >>disaster, but that's PC and acceptable. A warning that >>nationalizing private industry is a step on the path to >>dictatorship and communism isn't PC so it is subject to >>ridicule. >> >>Lemmings. >> > > Who's nationalizing private industry? The insurance companies would still be > there, selling supplemental insurance. Just like they do to Medicare > recipients. Yet the bulk of the business would be taken away in a nationalization scheme. What if the USG went into the auto manufacturing biz, but allowed others to continue with replacement parts and service. You wouldn't call that nationalization either then?
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 18:24 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <4cb81$45647cf4$4fe77c5$17514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>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. > > > What factors? Be specific. Anybody can make vague charges. The fact is, of > the money Medicare spends, only 3% goes to overhead -- administrative costs. Collections and postage spring to mindx immediately. Medicare spreads such costs to other agencies thus avoiding having to report those costs. So 3% goes to overhead within the agency. That becomes a meaningless number because there's nothing to compare it to. >>>>>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? > Because the only alternative now is they buy health insurance for themselves. > It's expensive, very much so the older you get. No. Not true. They're given what appears to me to be equivalent coverage under medicare. Medicare, per person, has a premium of less than $100 per month now and will remain under $100 after the latest increase goes into effect. >>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. > So why is this any different than what you could do under a single-payer > system for all Americans? The folks in younger age brackets will be thrown into the same pot with their retired elders. >>>>>>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. > Yeah, Enron, WorldCom, etc., all evolved nicely, didn't they? What's "all"? Evolution includes some dead ends. How about focusing on the successes? There are many more of them.
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 18:45 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. That's your take on the matter. I don't agree. It would mark the nationalization of a currently public sector business genre (health insurance) as well as the entire corporate owned medical care business and perhaps infrastructure. >>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... Your statement does nothing to address what it alleges it replies to. In fact, all you've provided is a series of hot buttons while completely ignoring what was written directly above. 1) You cannot argue with the fact that in my case the healthcare system has been 99% effective. 2) You fail to address the fact I called for an improvement to the present system, and went off on the tangent of how bad you believe things are right now. Can you stay on topic please. I know that's a novel idea around here, but please try. >>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. Of course it is an experiment. Everything new that any government tries is an experiment. Have you ever taken a government and civics course? How about political science, or economics? >>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. That's exactly what you folks suggesting an NHS are proposing. >>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." Oh BS yourself. The colonists didn't have any utilities let alone schools. They banded together for mutual defense. Where did you get the idea about "common grazing lands"??? The socialist aspects were under the management of the local church, not the local governor. The original colonies were being carved out of what amounted to unowned land. You might just as well be saying that everything on the continent west of the Atlantic Ocean without crops or a house was "common grazing lands." Did you ever have the opportunity to actually study American History? You seem to be making things up to suit your worldview.
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 18:54
Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. Again you speak from ignorance of the subject you're addressing. " The word "fascist" ( or "fascism") is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions or groups that would not describe themselves as fascist and that do not fall within the formal definition of the word." Read the rest of this discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(epithet) I don't deny being at the right end of the political spectrum. That's not fascist per se. >>Lucas keeps denying it, but all >>the words and concepts are there from both of them. > Ditto, fascist. Ditto: meaningless hot button epithet >>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. Wrong again, Bucko! >>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? Recreational drugs. >>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. Think about not getting pregnant. Think about taking control of your life and responsibility. >>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? We seem to have more of everything than Europe. >>See also >>the "Who is the father of my baby" genre television >>talk shows of recent times. |