Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Nov 2006 03:18 In article <8bf91$45479d15$49ecf26$8282(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <fo6dk2hpprhg7jii1rq5un96dqad6fn398(a)4ax.com>, >> John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:04:32 -0600, unsettled >>><unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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 often cover a body with dirt because of the scrimping? >>> >> >> >> Higher life expectancy than in the US, lower infant mortality, to name two >> that belie your assertion. > >Once again, blather, blather, and more meaningless blather. Data. If you're posting in a sci newsgroup, you should know what "data" means. >A large number of factors *other* than health care go >into better life expectancy and lower infant mortality. >To name a few, better eating (fewer red meats for >example) and less tobacco consumption come immediately >to mind, and statistically fewer drivers with a greater >reliance on mass transportation. Europe historically had higher tobacco usage than the US. And infants don't tend to eat much red meat. > >The European and Japanese parents don't rush out and buy >the kid a car as soon as the kid gets a drivers license. > Due to guess what? Government decisions regarding mass transit, gas taxes, etc. >> --- >> >>>>How long a wait is there for a hip replacement? >>>> >>>>How long here in the US? >>>> >>>>Canadians regularly come to the US and pay for surgery >>>>100% out of pocket because the waiting period is too >>>>long. Perhaps not in huge numbers, but enough to be >>>>noticeable. >>> >>>--- >>>Canadians don't come to the US to get hip replacements, they come >>>here to get hip in the first place. ;) >>> >>>
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Nov 2006 03:22 In article <eia07l$8ss_002(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ei56j9$3mf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ehv9me$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <1161872944.979802.222000(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>> Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other >>>>> 99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess? >>>> >>>>This is simply false. >>> >>>Oh, you mean my comment about only Bin Laden. >>>> >>>>Things I can remember, off the top of my head, Clinton admin doing: >>>> >>>>(A) >>>>The Counter-Terrorism Act of IIRC 1995 >>> >>>I don't remember that one. I'll check it out. Didn't that just >>>provide some funding to put cement barriers around a few buildings? >>>> >>>>(B) >>>>Conducted terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility. >>> >>>I don't believe that. From my recollection the embassies were >>>checked and then nothing was done to fix the security problems >>>in most of them; no funding was allowed. >>>> >>>>(C) >>>>Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >>>>I remember because it was a near perfect failure. >>> >>>I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >>>of religion an effective action. That's spitting into a gale >>>force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >>>a hundred miles away. >>> >>>> The Saudi government >>>>had made a faustian bargain with the Wahhabiists and the US depended on >>>>Saudi oil so much that there was no leaverage point. >>> >>>None of these are actions that addresses the problems as Clinton's >>>stump speeches would have one believe. >>> >>>I'll ask again...if those plans were so good and so effective, why >>>didn't _Clinton_ use them instead of now blaming Bush for not >>>doing it? >>> >> >>As was posted here, the confirmation from the FBI and CIA that bin Laden was >>behind the Cole came right at the end of Clinton's term, so it was too late >>for him to act on that. But plans had been drawn up and were left for Bush. > >It was not too late for him to act on the first WTC bombing. > Which he did. The people responsible were caught, tried, and convicted, and are in prison. Where are the people responsible for 9/11? Free. >> >>Clinton also never received a briefing that bin Laden was (1) "determined to >>strike inside the US" and (2) might crash airplanes into buildings. Bush got >>both. > >Why do you keep insisting that the only appropriate method of >ensuring national security is to wait until something happens and >then be in react mode? That is one sure way to get destroyed. > >/BAH Bush was warned BEFORE 9/11. That's the whole point.
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Nov 2006 03:21 In article <9613b$45481cc3$4fe70c0$11204(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. > Everything is -- military, education, etc. Are you advocating everyone deciding whether to fund the military too? >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. Liar. The data is there. Look it up. > >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. You are wrong. Your right-wing talking points can't mask your lies. >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. > You are lying again. We keep telling you, the per capita costs are lower in Canada and Europe. >The case B employer is at a disadvantage. He's >supporting healthcare for people who don't >directly provide him with any services. > You're really bucking for idiot of the week.
From: MooseFET on 1 Nov 2006 09:47 unsettled wrote: > 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. No, I never said that. I certainly don't get something for nothing I get my health care insurance in the US were the systems inefficiencies adds 60% to the cost of my insurance. Basically I'm getting nothing for something not the the other way around. In the US you have to pay for a bunch more paper pushers and the profit of the "for profit" insurance company. Money is diverted from health care into waste. > > Here it is a nutshell. All government and healthcare > expenses are on the backs of working people. You somehow think that non-government health care isn't when it is in fact costing you more. Are you going to go without health insurance? I seriously doubt it. If you aren't going to, you have to pay for the non-government health care, so it will be what is "on your back". > 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. If you mean those countries where the poor die in the street, and plagues run through the population for time to time, I'd have to agree. The Sudan pays less per person for health care. Check out the life expecancy there. If you compare what they spend per worker in Canada to what we spend per worker in the US, the spending per worker is higher in the US. > 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 A larger percentage in canada. > > 2) What does that cost Less than it does in the US > > 3) What is the path of the money coming out > of the workers. This doesn't matter. What matters is how well health care is delivered for each dollar from the workers. The US does very badly in this area. > You'll find that when everything is properly tallied > the costs, per covered individual, are similar > everywhere. A few words summarize this discussion: This is simply not true. The inefficiencies in the US drive the cost up by an extra 60% without delivering anything in return. If you tally up the cost, people in the US are getting screwed. > "There is no free lunch!" I agree but I don't want to pay an extra 60% for the 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. Canada is case B and yet they pay less. This is because they are more efficient so less gets spent on paper pushers. The numbers don't lie.
From: MooseFET on 1 Nov 2006 10:02
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <4qnbicFo0aioU1(a)individual.net>, [....] > >China is massively investing in coal liquefaction plants. > > When I was there in the 80s, their economy was based > on all coal. ARe they working on development autos that > can run on coal tar? No, they are working on making liquid fuel for cars out of coal. They aren't changing the cars. They are changing the coal. |