From: Don Kirkman on
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:35:58 -0500, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

>In article <4b80024b$0$4873$9a6e19ea(a)>,
>nobrac(a) says...

>> Ok, here's a possible future scenario. The US dollar continues to
>> decline until it becomes nearly worthless in international trade. Cut
>> off from world markets, the economy collapses. Unemployment skyrockets.
>> There is widespread civil unrest. Foreign interests come in with their
>> stronger currencies and buy up everything worth having. At that point
>> the country will have been effectively taken over by foreign interests.

>> Say this actually happens. Will you still be sharing your smug little
>> stories about the survival of the fittest? What if you're the one on the
>> losing end?

>If you had been paying attention I have been stating, for several years,
>that this is a possibility in the future. It is the next evolution fron
>nation states to business states. Nations do not survive based upon the
>personality of their current leader, they survive based upon their
>wealth and from wealth comes power.

>The fittest do survive. The weak and timid tiger never mates, his blood
>line dies out.

You won't get any support from Darwin; he posited evolution as the
survival of the fittest *species* within the specific environment, not
the survival of the individuals who could overpower or ignore the rest
of the species.

>I've been on the losing end of mergers and acquisitions? I been on the
>losing end of physical altercations. You either cower in fear or you
>stand up and fight again. I believe that you will be one of the people
>who will cower in fear and when the come to physically take you away you
>will be screaming that it isn't fair.

And this helps ensure the survival of the species how?
Don Kirkman
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Feb 20, 9:13 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:13:43 -0800, dene wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...(a)> wrote in message
> >news:4b802399$0$4892$9a6e19ea(a)
> >> I work in IT. Like a lot of businesses, my company has shed a
> >> percentage of its permanent workforce and any new hires are brought
> >> on as contractors. You would have liked this one fellow. He kept
> >> telling me how the US healthcare system is the best one in the world,
> >> even though as a contractor he had no benefits. He had a cyst appear
> >> on his stomach. It got to the point where he couldn't ignore it and
> >> he had to get dug out, on his lunch hour, as an outpatient.
> >> It turns out he has cancer. I saw him the other day. All his hair has
> >> fallen out and he has big bags under his eyes. I assume he's getting
> >> chemo somehow. If he does survive I imagine he will lose everything
> >> he owns. I don't know the particulars about how his healthcare
> >> coverage lapsed, but I do know he was laid off from his previous job
> >> and it took him a long time to find a new one. He has kids to look
> >> after. I assume he decided that paying the mortgage and putting food
> >> on the table was more important than health insurance.
> > Assume is right.  There is always the untold story.  Find out what it
> > is.
> I will not pump him for details for the sake of some Usenet argument.
> I do know he was unemployed for almost a year and got close to
> foreclosure on his house. He told me that by the time he got hired he
> had gone through his savings and had about maxed his credit cards. It
> seems pretty obvious to me that he couldn't afford to feed his kids and
> pay health insurance at the same time.
> The system absolutely needs an engine replacement if guys like him are
> falling through the cracks. Even if he survives he will be dead broke
> and won't be able to get insurance because of his now pre-existing
> condition. He's a stand-up guy and he's fucked. It's not right.

So why don't you pay for his treatments then?
From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:29:39 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
<frostback2002(a)> wrote:

>> If universal healthcare provided healthcare for less total cost than
>> private healthcare plus taxes, would it still be a bad thing?
>Cost is not the important issue. Accessibility is more important. Why
>should I have my health care reduced to some common denominator to
>satisfy the govts desire to give free healthcare to deadbeats?

You already do. There isn't a public debate between providing such
care or eliminating such care. There are some arguments about how
cost effective it is to have healthy job seekers, similar to questions
about public education. But since removing such health care is not
an option on the table, why are so many people bringing it up?

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Feb 21, 8:32 am, BAR <sc...(a)> wrote:
> In article <9p01o5lhceo0fs5tcljk0moihhhke14...(a)>,
> xslee...(a) says...
> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:43:42 -0800 (PST), "John B."
> > <johnb...(a)> wrote:
> > >The fact that other OECD countries are not having a civil war about
> > >health care the way we are kind of suggests that they don't think
> > >they've jumped off a bridge.
> > In the UK 11% of the population has private health insurance.  Why do
> > you think they choose to pay for something that they can already get
> > for free?  Rich Canadians, including government ministers, come to the
> > US for health care.  Why do you suppose they do that?
> Because the system in the UK does not function as intended. People get
> sick and need medical attention now, not at a time when it is cost
> effective for the government.
> The same for the rich Canadians.

In Canada, you pay for the "care" up front, and then have the "care"
rationed by the govt according to political criteria (you have to have
a (one single) primary care physician who regulates all your health
care, and this person must be a GP type MD) . MDs are regulated as to
how many patients they can take and what they earn for various
services. MDs are also regulated with respect to where they can work.

Canadians consider themselves to be very fortunate if their primary
care physician speaks English ( or French for that matter) as their
first language. Apologists consider the pointing out of this as
"racist", as usual, but the fact remains that people in Canada for
whom English or French is their first language do not choose medicine
as a career choice to the degree to which they once did. I wonder why
that is?
From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:35:39 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
<frostback2002(a)> wrote:

>One way or another, health care has to be earned. With the evolution
>of the progressive entitlements of the 20th century, peoples desire to
>earn things like health care has declined, and people expectation that
>they have a "right" to such things has who is going to do
>the earning.

But that's not an option being proposed by either party.

>If I have a "right" to food, housing, health care, why should I sweat
>the workplace so much?
>Also, why do I have a "right" to require some other person to build me
>a house, grow my food or provide me with health care? Why, given such
>"rights", should I build houses, produce food, or provide health care,
>especially given you are going to want to minimize your costs, and
>rail at me if I make any money providing these services? If you are
>going to dictate what I earn, then I in turn should dictate what you
>earn, right?

Pretty much the same reasons that we have public education, for better
or for worse. The exception being epidemic control, which I expect
even you are willing to support.

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison