Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 13 Oct 2009 14:56 Charlie E. wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:29:53 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-... >>>> >>>> Comments? >>>> >>>> VLV >>> "Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. >>> But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters >>> are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters." >>> >>> That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, >>> calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as >>> proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the >>> obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax >>> dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% >>> efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the >>> federal government. >>> >>> But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to >>> implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens >>> want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. >>> Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, >>> etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is. >>> >>> And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. >>> That' s the way it should be. >> Complication: the states that offer free or cheap medical care will >> become magnets for the people with expensive medical problems. >> >> John > > True. But such people usually come with their families, who usually > are a resource to the state that they reside in. > Not always. For example, with grossly obese people I see family patterns. > The truth is, experiments such as taxuchuses are apparently failing. > Universal health care is a fallacy, as not everyone wants to > participate! > I've lived in Europe. The good thing there is that people with pre-existing conditions do not become pariahs like here. We must remember that it's not always their own fault. However, that system often leads to behavior such as going to the doctor for every little constipation or demanding antibiotics for minor sniffles. I see similar habits here with folks like retired bureaucrats who have cradle-to-grave healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 13 Oct 2009 15:08 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:46:47 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:29:53 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>wrote: >> >>>On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-... >>>> >>>> Comments? >>>> >>>> VLV >>> >>>"Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. >>> But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters >>> are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters." >>> >>>That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, >>>calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as >>>proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the >>>obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax >>>dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% >>>efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the >>>federal government. >>> >>>But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to >>>implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens >>>want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. >>>Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, >>>etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is. >>> >>>And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. >>>That' s the way it should be. >> >>Complication: the states that offer free or cheap medical care will >>become magnets for the people with expensive medical problems. >> >>John > >True. But such people usually come with their families, who usually >are a resource to the state that they reside in. > >The truth is, experiments such as taxuchuses are apparently failing. >Universal health care is a fallacy, as not everyone wants to >participate! > >Charlie We need serious cost control, starting with cutting the lawyers out of the system, and negotiating for generic drugs for public health programs. And we need a network of free clinics, staffed by nurse practitioners, that anyone can walk into with zero paperwork. Tax laws should be structured to encourage Kaiser-type systems. But the current drive isn't about health care, it's about power. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 13 Oct 2009 15:31 On Oct 13, 1:29 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >>http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-... > > >> Comments? > > >> VLV > > >"Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. > > But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters > > are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters." > > >That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, > >calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as > >proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the > >obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax > >dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% > >efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the > >federal government. > > >But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to > >implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens > >want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. > >Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, > >etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is. > > >And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. > >That' s the way it should be. > > Complication: the states that offer free or cheap medical care will > become magnets for the people with expensive medical problems. > > John You're invoking logic, foresight, & reason. That's cheating. I too have a litany of objections to the schemes, but was answering the complaint that red states are somehow holding back the blues. And, I'm allowing for the fact that clever states might solve those objections & prove me wrong, which would be great. As for this objection, are there so many, and are they all that mobile? In other contexts, would-be liberals would argue no, that people in, say, Detroit, are hopeless, hapless victims, incapable of relocating, and need assistance where they stand. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Fred Bartoli on 13 Oct 2009 15:36 Jim Thompson a �crit : > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:35:48 -0400, Stephan Goldstein > <sgoldHAM(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:00:23 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:52:18 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:35:01 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky >>>> <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-secede.html >>>>> >>>>> Comments? >>>>> >>>>> VLV >>>> Sounds fishy, particularly after just watching Al Gore handle a >>>> audience question he didn't like by turning off the questioner's >>>> microphone. >>>> >>>> I live in Arizona, obviously, and the numbers don't gibe. >>>> >>>> I'd be happy to walk, and cut off California's water in the process >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> BTW, Indiana is quite solvent ;-) >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> Usually I can put my finger on a state-by-state <=> Federal flow. >>> >>> For some reason tonight, I can't seem to find one that's actually per >>> capita. >>> >>> Past numbers I've looked at certainly indicated that Arizona and Texas >>> would be better off. >>> >>> I do know, that if we killed all liberals, it would benefit not only >>> the economy but the climate as well ;-) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> Is it asking too much to get back to electronics? The spam from >> Google is bad enough, why do we also have to tolerate same >> coming from Arizona, with followups? > > I'm the pro here, Yes... The pro and cons... so why would I be asking circuit questions ?:-) Fear someone else answers it? -- Thanks, Fred.
From: Joerg on 13 Oct 2009 15:59
John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:46:47 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:29:53 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-... >>>>> >>>>> Comments? >>>>> >>>>> VLV >>>> "Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. >>>> But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters >>>> are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters." >>>> >>>> That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, >>>> calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as >>>> proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the >>>> obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax >>>> dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% >>>> efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the >>>> federal government. >>>> >>>> But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to >>>> implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens >>>> want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. >>>> Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, >>>> etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is. >>>> >>>> And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. >>>> That' s the way it should be. >>> Complication: the states that offer free or cheap medical care will >>> become magnets for the people with expensive medical problems. >>> >>> John >> True. But such people usually come with their families, who usually >> are a resource to the state that they reside in. >> >> The truth is, experiments such as taxuchuses are apparently failing. >> Universal health care is a fallacy, as not everyone wants to >> participate! >> >> Charlie > > We need serious cost control, starting with cutting the lawyers out of > the system, ... Amen! > ... and negotiating for generic drugs for public health > programs. ... Or simply allow free trade, including imports. > ... And we need a network of free clinics, staffed by nurse > practitioners, that anyone can walk into with zero paperwork. > > Tax laws should be structured to encourage Kaiser-type systems. > Kaiser is the plan we have. But it's as inflationary as the others, only affordable when you max the deductible. We have that, along with an HSA, but unfortunately large parts of the population are not capable enough in terms of money management resp. saving money. Most people save nothing. > But the current drive isn't about health care, it's about power. > After I read about excise taxes on some health plans I begin to believe the same :-( -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |