Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 31 Oct 2006 16:09 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:79e2a$45479b9c$49ecf26$8124(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <ei7ftp$8ss_003(a)s868.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <ei57gl$3mf$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <ei4s7g$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip delusional expectations that Democrats never fulfilled> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >>>>>>>medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >>>>>>>tax penalties will be imposed. >>>>>> >>>>>>The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They don't >>>>>>want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to fund >>>>>>their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay for >>>>>>their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >>>>>>discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >>>>>>insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the care >>>>>>of >>>>>>those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to do if >>>>>>you have the state paying for those who can't. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to the >>>>>>poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >>>>>>irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one taken. >>>>> >>>>>Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >>>>>and people are trying to get rid of it. 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. The new thing that these idiots have implemented is >>>>>tying the payments to income taxes. They did this with sales >>>>>tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >>>>>a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >>>>>nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >>>>>medical insurance. >>>> >>>>Europe uses a centralized payment for medical care, as do Canada and >>>>Japan. They cover everybody and spend less. >>> >>>And deliver less service over a longer period of time. >> >> >> They do NOT. Every objective study has found the opposite. (Consumer >> Reports, for example, had an article about Canada a few years back.) >> Further, every survey in those countries finds people more satisfied than >> Americans are with theirs. > > You obviously misunderstand the studies. This from the "guy" who refuses to even read the study that estimated the number of Iraqis killed in our invasion, and dismisses the science without even understanding the methods. What a hoot! > If you're posting to usenet, especially to sci newsgroups, > you should already know this stuff. Yes, you should. Eric Lucas
From: MooseFET on 31 Oct 2006 21:56 Michael A. Terrell 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. Maybe it just seems longer. > > > -- > 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 22:05 unsettled wrote: [....] > > Plus, our system of employers providing health insurance puts them at a > > competitive disadvantage world-wide. > > You do realize that this final sentence of yours makes no > sense at all. Employers who provide insurance are *not* > at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. > > Where there's national health insurance, which is universal > in any given country, where does the money come from? From > the unemployed, perhaps? It also comes from the employers but less money is required so the US employers who provide health insurance are placed at a disadvantage. In the US health care costs about 60% more than in Canada so US employers are at a disadvantage to that degree. There is some compensating advantage in that in Canada, you have to spend hugely on heating so your workers don't freeze to death on the shop floor.
From: unsettled on 31 Oct 2006 23:14 MooseFET wrote: > unsettled wrote: > [....] > >>>Plus, our system of employers providing health insurance puts them at a >>>competitive disadvantage world-wide. >> >>You do realize that this final sentence of yours makes no >>sense at all. Employers who provide insurance are *not* >>at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. >> >>Where there's national health insurance, which is universal >>in any given country, where does the money come from? From >>the unemployed, perhaps? > > > It also comes from the employers but less money is required so the US > employers who provide health insurance are placed at a disadvantage. > In the US health care costs about 60% more than in Canada so US > employers are at a disadvantage to that degree. > > There is some compensating advantage in that in Canada, you have to > spend hugely on heating so your workers don't freeze to death on the > shop floor. I really love this. You actually think you're getting something for nothing. Here it is a nutshell. All government and healthcare expenses are on the backs of working people. Where you have universal healthcare, that is *everyone* is covered, the cost to the worker is larger than it is where "the poor" have no coverage. Where taxes are higher, employers have to pay larger compensation. This entire discussion is really only about 1) What part of the population is covered 2) What does that cost 3) What is the path of the money coming out of the workers. You'll find that when everything is properly tallied the costs, per covered individual, are similar everywhere. A few words summarize this discussion: "There is no free lunch!" In case A, employer pays health insurance. Some costs for poor and unemployed are avoided, reducing total costs below that in case B. Case B, the employer and the worker pay the state to provide health insurnce. Everyone is covered, driving total costs higher than case A. The case B employer is at a disadvantage. He's supporting healthcare for people who don't directly provide him with any services.
From: John Larkin on 1 Nov 2006 00:06
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:30:35 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>Being unsettled doesn't sound very healthy, either. >>> >>>Your opinions obviously grow out of your average education. >> >> >> Actually, I acquired some facts from my formal education, but not many >> opinions. What good are opinions if you acquire them pre-packaged? > >Thanks for spelling out the problem so nicely. > >Education, that is a real education, allows one to gather >facts and draw valid conclusions (workable solutions.) Accounting works that way, yes. I invent things, which is a different process entirely. > >The facts you think you acquired from your formal education >aren't from "education" at all. They come from something >called "training." The more a person is trained, the more >they come to believe that the pre-packaged facts they learn >aren't setting them up to believe an entire library of >pre-packaged solutions which drive their opinions. > >This leaves my comment, "Your opinions obviously grow >out of your average education" intact. I would have >done better had I substituted the word training for >education. Well, the engineering school I went to certainly didn't encourage original thinking, at least among undergraduates. The theory was that "analysis is for undergraduates, and you learn design in grad school" but I saw little evidence of that, and didn't stick around to find out. I mostly learned to think the way people learn most other stuff, by doing it. Based on the recent college grads I've interviewed, schools still don't encourage a lot of thinking. The few really good thinkers I know were contrarians in school; heck, that's almost axiomatic. As far as "workable solutions" goes, I've done about $200 million worth of them so far, and I'm just getting good at it. If I think back on what parts of my college education helped me do that, I'd say it was the first two years, the fundamental physics, math, signals/systems theory, and maybe psychology courses that had lasting value. And Beginners' Tumbling was pretty good. Some day I might try to teach people to think; maybe it can be done. John |