Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii2uj$8nc_005(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <fAI2h.515$Mw.135(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eifgj0$8qk_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <ZDn2h.3658$B31.603(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eicori$8qk_013(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <Ht32h.25968$7I1.23695(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:eia16e$8ss_008(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> In article <PDp1h.23510$e66.6564(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:1162219707.131372.172210(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.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: >>>>>>>>> [....] >>>>>>>>>> >> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Agreed. The biggest insurance problem in Massachusetts, at least >>>>>>>>while >>>>>>>>I >>>>>>>>was living there, was no-fault insurance. It removes any >>>>>>>>consequences >>>>>>>>for >>>>>>>>bad driving. Every state in this nation that has it, has a complete >>>>>>>>nightmare on its roads, especially in the cities. If you make >>>>>>>>people >>>>>>>>responsible for their bad driving, they tend not to become such bad >>>>>>>>drivers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Exactly how does the cash register know how much you earn when it >>>>>>>>rings >>>>>>>>up >>>>>>>>the sales tax on that gallon of milk you just bought? Me smells a >>>>>>>>red >>>>>>>>herring. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Go to Mass. DoR web site. Find Form 1. Look at line 33 of the >>>>>>> 2005 year and its instructions. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, as I thought, it is a red herring. That is use tax due on >>>>>>out-of-state >>>>>>purchases, calculated independent of a person's income. In no way is >>>>>>the >>>>>>amount of tax related to a person's income. Your lies are getting you >>>>>>nowhere. >>>>> >>>>> Did you read the instructions? In them is a precedent which >>>>> can be used to collect a VAT as a percentage of your income. >>>>> Just one little twitch of a rider on a bill in the state House >>>>> can change that into an additional income tax. It's been done >>>>> before. If you look at the form, go up a few lines and see >>>>> how we are allowed to "volunteer" to pay a higher income >>>>> tax rate. >>>> >>>>From the published instructions: >>>>"A 5% Massachusetts use tax is due on your taxable >>>> >>>>purchases of tangible personal property purchased >>>> >>>>for use in Massachusetts on which you >>>> >>>>did not pay Massachusetts sales or use tax." >>> >>> Very good. Now continue reading the instructions. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Nothing about income there. >>> >>> Pay attention to the if clause. There is paragraph that says >>> if you don't have records, you can opt to pay your out >>> of state purchases sales tax as a percentage of your income. >> >>Yes, because your consumption is generally a certain percentage of your >>income. In fact, this method is actually a *progressive* tax, because >>their >>consumption is usually a much larger fraction of their income than it is >>for >>the wealthy, yet they are taxed at the same percentage of their income. >>But >>it is important to remember that the *rate* of taxation of consumption is >>not dependent on your income, as you stated earlier. It's no worse or >>better than any other sales tax. > > Wrong. It taxes people as if they had bought things even if they > haven't spent their money. If you don't want to have to estimate, you're welcome to save all sales tax records. If you don't, it's your own fault if you have to pay the tax from the table. > It is not a progressive tax; it is > a re
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:27 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii3bf$8nc_006(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454B8CBB.216F8FE1(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money >>> >> >> >for >>> >> >> >health care. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? >>> >> > >>> >> >Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs >>> >> >>> >> They don't. >>> > >>> >My advice is that they *do* ! >>> > >>> >In fact I know a chap in the USA whose wife's preferred drugs were so >>> >prohibitively expensive that they couldn't afford them and had to 'make > do' >>> >withsomething cheaper. >>> > >>> >Maybe we have different ideas of 'expensive' ? In the UK an NHS course >>> >of >>> >drugscosts ?6.50 ( ~ $12.30 ). >>> >>> Is that your copayment? >> >>We call it a precription charge. > > OK. The US' term is copayment. > >> It's a flat rate for any course of one single >>drug which might be from 7 days to say 3 months. So if your treatment >>needs 2 >>drugs you pay ?6.50 ea for them. >> >> >>> What do they really cost? >> >>I've no idea. Usually more but not always since the NHS >>makes extensive use of >>generics which they ( and the pharmacists ) can buy in >>bulk and get a good price on. > > This means that you don't have access to any improved drugs. Says who? He didn't say the exclusively used generics, just when they are available. > The patent period, IRRC, in the US is 20 years. 17 years. > With your > drug plan, you have to use 20-year old medical drug technology. Where did you get that idea? Another one of your assumptions to justify your odd view of the world? >>> From what >>> I've read about UK social programs a lot of real costs are hidden >>> because a lot is subsidized. >> >>That's the whole point. If your drugs cost say ?200 you still only pay >>?6.50. >>This means good health care is affordable for all regardless of income. > > So who is paying for the rest of the cost? $200-$6.50=$193.50 > (I don't have a pound sign so I'll use dollars). Spread over all taxpayers equally. >>The appointment with the doctor or consultant is free of course since >>they're >>employed by the NHS ( actually these days the local Primary Care Trust ). > > Just because you don't pay for it does not mean there are no costs > for that delivery of service. Somebody is paying for suppplies, > labor, footprint, cleaning, disposing, etc. He didn't say there there weren't costs. Obviously there are. The actual data, already presented in this thread, is that, in total, it costs much less per person in the UK than it does in the US, for a number of reasons. I suspect much lower malpractice insurance and lack of ridiculously high insurance industry profits and salaries are huge drivers, but there are many others. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:33 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii3t5$8nc_007(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454B8F8F.58262328(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >> Do you take this to imply there is a *shortage* of the goods and > services >>> >> in Europe? >>> > >>> >I was hoping to discover this too. >>> > >>> >Maybe BAH can enlighten us ? >>> >>> I don't know about now... >>> >>> People would fly over to buy computers, blue jeans, tooth paste, >>> books, condiments. >> >>To the USA ? > > Yes. > > >> >>Well..... we do actually have computers here. In fact the Dell brand sells > well >>here too. >>http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs > > They didn't use to be sold over there. You have a really, really strange view of the world. Computers have been available in the UK and western Europe since they have here in the US. >>I do know that there are some 'cuts' of jeans that may only be available >>in > the >>USA due to perceived national fashion differences but there's no shortage >>of >>them over here nor toothpaste, books or condiments for that matter. > > For the toothpaste and condiments it was particular brands. For the > books, friends of ours would buy $500 worth of paperbacks because > they couldn't get those titles at home. Yeah, and there are a lot of UK titles that I'm sure are difficult to find here. So what? >>> There was something else that was very odd >>> but I can't remember what it was. These items were cheaper, if >>> available for sale in European stores. Most were not available >>> and could not be ordered. Buying the stuff while you were in >>> your country was not allowed but you could go over and buy the >>> stuff as a tourist. >> >>Not allowed ? What do you mean exactly ? > > Import bans, taxes, etc. Details, please. You appear to be making this up. >>> These restrictions may have to be dropped now that there is >>> online shopping available. >> >>There never have been any restrictions on what you can buy since rationing > from >>WW2 ended in the 50s. > > It didn't end in the UK. Thatcher was still removing vestiges of > WWII price and labor controls when she was PM. You might actually want to listen to the citizens of the UK in this discussion for this data. They know what they're talking about--you appear not to. Or did you read in one of your books that there was rationing in the UK more recently than the 50s? Your assumptions again need a huge dose of actual data. >>You're a funny old girl you know ! > > Once in a great while I'm funny. However, I'm old all the time. That would go a long way to explain your odd worldview, and your inability to change it by incorporating data that contradict your assumptions. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii49d$8nc_008(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > We never saw Mexican nor Thai (e.g.) in the northeast until > people started to bring in supplies. What year (approximately--decade is close enough) did that start to happen? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 17:43
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454C9AB3.BC6D0925(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >So you choose to listen to somebody who isn't even running for >> >> >office, >> >> >> >> Kerry? He's running for President. >> > >> >Is he ? >> >> Yes. Time will tell if his latest slip of foot-in-mouth >> disease will affect his campaign. > > I wasn't aware that he had committed to run. He hasn't. She's using it as a strawman, so she can use any stupid thing he says (and I guarantee there will be a lot--he's an idiot) to smear all other members of his party. > Given his apparent lack of 'charisma' he might actually make a better > vice-presidential candidate perhaps ? No, he's unelectable. If we're ever going to clean up the mess that the Republicans have created, we're going to need an intelligent, charismatic president who's able to actually work with those with whom s/he disagrees. Bush fails on all three counts, and Kerry appears to as well. Eric Lucas |