Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 18:59 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ek47qf$8qk_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>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. You'd have to demonstrate the same code of accounts line entries are used for both in order for your comparison to be valid. That fact that they're not has been explained several times in this thread.
From: John Fields on 24 Nov 2006 19:02 On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:43:36 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >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 ! >> >> --- >> That's because they're so inefficient they have to. > >Idiot. --- Ah, I see I left you nonplussed and you had to revert to your name-calling mode to respond. Congratulations. You have now dropped down a notch in the food chain. -- JF
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 19:33 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <93e5c$456658ee$4fe70cd$27665(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: cutting to the chase yields: >>Perhaps you'd prefer to outlaw all tourism and tourist >>activities not meeting with your approval? > No, I'm suggesting that we should not delude ourselves into assuming that > all economic transactions in the private sector increase wealth and that > it is the flow of wealth not the flow of money that really matters. "Money is any marketable good or token used by a society as a store of value" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money So money is a vehicle used to more easily transfer wealth. Flow of money is the flow of wealth. Jack Sprat earns a million dollars. He takes it to a casino and loses it all. The value, and wealth, is lost to Jack, but is that wealth lost to society? Because they don't add value to society, should we outlaw casinos?
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 20:11 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <2edcb$4566330c$4fe7352$27010(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <4565B911.11BF2263(a)hotmail.com>, >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>> >>> >>>>How many communist economies exist worldwide ? >>> >>> >>>Zero if you round off to the nearest whole number. >> >>Maggot brain misspeaks again. China, Cuba, North Korea, >>and VietNam spring immediately to mind. >> > > China and Vietnam are quite capitalistic. North Korea isn't communist as much > as autocratic, more like czarist Russia than the USSR. So you've got one, > Cuba. I don't understand how you folks have managed to lose touch with the realities. I have 3: "In the 1990s a program of share-holding and greater market orientation went into effect; however, state enterprises continue to dominate many key industries in China's 'socialist market economy.'" http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0857293.html "Government - Type: Highly centralized communist state. "North Korea introduced some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the state-run distribution system has deteriorated. But the regime seems determined to maintain control." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm "The Cuban government oversees the the largely state- controlled planned economy, though there remains significant foreign investment and enterprise in Cuba. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and most of the labor force is employed by the state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 20:17
Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <22403$456612bb$4fe77e2$26392(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ek4e49$8qk_007(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>I am amazed you think a backward, socialist, royalist country like the UK > is >>>capable of doing something as important for it's people as a nationwide >>>health service, available to all, when the mighty US is not. >>As I've posted before, my experience with US healthcare and >>insurance is different from BAH's. I'm at personally 99% >>satisfaction. That's not to say a large number of her points >>aren't valid. In particular, likening health insurance to >>a Ponzi scheme has been misunderstood by most of those >>arguing with BAH. If general health insurance is affordable >>to most people, then so would the actual costs of healthcare >>were it not for the fact that insurance companies, by the very >>natgure of the beast, drive charges for medical services >>upwards as well as improve the availability of services >>that might, in the absence of insurance, never be made >>available. >>Health insurance is a mixed bag, as most things are. What >>we have here in the US isn't perfect, but then nothing is. >>Before someone pouts again about the poor not having >>full services available, we do have an unfunded socialist >>mandate from the federal government requiring every >>hospital Emergency Room to provide sufficient servces >>to all comers in imminent danger. > Yes, and that's all. No maintenance medication, no preventative screening, no > physical exams to catch things early, etc. Just "if you're dying, we're > stablilize you and then dismiss you." Sorry, that's not good health care. > Plus, since emergency room care is more expensive, and it's more expensive to > treat things than prevent them, this adds to YOUR health care costs. It buys them time to get signed up for medicaid, which they are irresponsible for not having signed on to earlier. >>Other vehicles such as medicaid are available to the >>indigent. That's a no frills service, but nobody who >>presents themselves to an ER is going to die in the >>US for lack of timely health care. > Not die, but you've got to dying to get this emergency care. Now you've lost touch of the reality in the paragraph you're making believe you're replying to. Again. >>Contrary to several unfounded opinions expressed here, >>we have a working system that's not nearing a collapse. > If you're rich or have employer insurance. And Medicaid is meaningless? >>The Marxist socialist protests > Oh give it a break, Nazi. Sheesh, we've been bumped up against Godwin! This rather puts you into the same Marxist socialist bag with then others. >> voiced in this thread >>are a clear indication that the proponents who have >>so far voiced their opinions haven't a foggiest clue >>about economic theory. |