Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 31 Oct 2006 09:31 MooseFET wrote: > > Before you start suggesting threatening Canada, remember their national > sport is <deep voice> hockey </deep voice> whereas the US's national > sport is <whiny voice> baseball </whiny voice>. Canada's hero image is Dudley Doright, while America's is John Wayne. I'd bet on a man who can throw a grenade and fire a machine gun, over a Mountie who rides hs horse backwards, any day. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: MooseFET on 31 Oct 2006 09:50 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: [....] > >Massachusetts sets the insurance rates for autos. This includes > >mandated increases for speeders etc. The change will be to remove this > >requirement not to remove the requirement to have insurance. You will > >still be required to be responsible. If you drive a car you have to be > >prepared to pay if you cause an accident. I > > The change proposed by voters is to take the rate setting out > of the hands of politicians. That way if you do not drive > well, you are the one who pays the higher premiums instead of > the ones who do drive well. The companies will set the rates according to what they see as their best interests. This does not ensure that the people who drive well get a lower rate. Gathering that information and managing the pricing is expensive. It is far less costly just to make up rules including zip code[1] and years driving etc and use those. Accidents are way too random of events to base insurance on. Not that Mass. had increases for the things that increase risks. I doubt that there will be any better tracking of how well people drive than that. [1] Postal codes for non-US > > > >> The fact that the Democrats > >> have implemented a similar structure for medical insurance (this > >> is NOT medical care) bodes ill for all, especially those who > >> cannot pay. > > > >No, this is the funding of medical care. > > Look again. It is funding insurance. This does not guarantee > that you will be able to *find* a doctor nor a nurse to > fix what you broke. But not being able to come up with the money guarantees that you won't be able to find one unless you get taken as a charity case. Doctors like most people want to be payed for their work. Insurance is the current method we use to pay them. > > > You can have the cost of > >those who choose not to get insured spread among the responsible who > >do or you can try to make people responsible for their own actions and > >have them cover the costs. > > Where is the monies for that medical tax going to end up? > It will not be spent on real things. You have concluded that but I would like to see a cite on it. Do you have any evidence that the government is less efficient at taking in money and paying for health care with than the private sector. The standard is not no waste. The standard is compared to the alternative. Private health insurance companies spend about 20% on things that aren't health care. Medicare spends about 3% on overhead. [...] > You are very foolish. So the money flows into the general fund > of the state's coffers which then gets used for the latest and > loudest social demand. The people who do get the money are > the receivers of patronage. These people don't even show up > for work. You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. Here's a little secret, his program is not the news. [...] > >In other words this is a tax that goes onto those who can most easily > >pay. This is a better idea than a flat sales tax. Better yet would be > >to make it all income taxes but I assume that the political situation > >won't support that. > > In about five years, there won't be anybody employed. Now how > are you going to fund all these hare brained expenditures. So what's the unemployment rate now? How has it changed in the last couple of years? The republicans keep telling us there is a great economy. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that they would be misleading us. [....] > > I am quite clear on the idea. For > >that matter I should point out that I intruduced this relationship > >between the two in my earlier post. > > You're very clear that you believe giving out freebies doesn't > cost any money and is very efficient. No, I'm very clear on what costs what. Giving out freebies when it prevents huge problems is the right thing to do. It is all about "mess prevention". [....] > >The argument I posted was that the state is paying for the care of the > >uninsured. Are you claiming that this isn't happening? > > Right. The poster child for the passage was uninsured kids; for > some reason (but to be expected from these Democrats) those > kids "slipped" through the cracks. That's what the same > politicians are saying now. Do they really think that all of > us are that stupid? Well they do know you voted republican. [...] > ARe these the only choices? How about sending a bill to the patient > like they did in the olden days? Those "good old days" were actually quite awful. People had to go up and down the street begging their neighbors for the money for an ambulance. People died for the lack of health care and others merely got sick and passed the disease on. [...] > >Remember it is instincts we are talking about not the rational actions > >of people. I think you will see that getting the high status male to > >protect you is a good instinctive behavor to have. > > You can't be more wrong. Relying on one, and only one, person > for the health and survival of a whole community is fatal. And yet this seems to be the rule in most of the animal kingdom and for most of human history.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 31 Oct 2006 10:14 MooseFET wrote: > > SInce on the average Canadians live longer than Americans (79 vs 77), > we can assume that health care is getting delivered quite well up > there. No, its just that the cold winters that slow everything down. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: David Bostwick on 31 Oct 2006 10:37 In article <45476864.AB9F9647(a)earthlink.net>, mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net wrote: >MooseFET wrote: >> >> SInce on the average Canadians live longer than Americans (79 vs 77), >> we can assume that health care is getting delivered quite well up >> there. > > > No, its just that the cold winters that slow everything down. > > Actually, it's because they come to the US instead of waiting forever in Canada.
From: Homer J Simpson on 31 Oct 2006 10:59
"David Bostwick" <david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:ei7qis$565$1(a)news-int2.gatech.edu... > In article <45476864.AB9F9647(a)earthlink.net>, mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net > wrote: >>MooseFET wrote: >>> >>> SInce on the average Canadians live longer than Americans (79 vs 77), >>> we can assume that health care is getting delivered quite well up >>> there. >> No, its just that the cold winters that slow everything down. > Actually, it's because they come to the US instead of waiting forever in > Canada. So why do Americans come to Canada for medical treatment? |