health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 21 Feb 2010 22:30 On 22 Feb 2010 02:25:51 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >Cost here, life expectancy there. Are you suggesting that actual facts >in the form of verifiable statistics are somehow more "superficial" than >your and Bert's ideologically driven rants? You're kidding, right? This is becoming stylish. Periodically it becomes politically successful to rail against intellectuals. Not to the extent that Pol Pot did (killing everybody who wore glasses), but close to Sarah Palin levels. When people do this, a common thing is to give all opinions the same weight. Evidence doesn't matter. -- "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: Howard Brazee on 21 Feb 2010 22:31 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:18:59 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >A tax cannot be progressive for some taxpayers and regressive for >others. Why not? -- "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: Jim Lovejoy on 22 Feb 2010 01:07 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote in news:ybmgn.5347$bx3.1594(a)newsfe13.iad: > > On 21-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >> >He made choices, he has to live with the choices he made. >> > >> >I make choices and I will have to live with the choices I make. >> >> One choice I have made is to give others money so that when I have >> medical care needs that I can't pay for, others will pay for them. >> >> >> That is socialized medical care - whether I give the money directly to >> insurance companies or whether I give it directly to the government. >> The details don't change this. > > no bonehead it isn't > Please note that the definition below does *not* restrict itself to government only. The organized group can be an insurance company, and the "funds obtained by assessments" can be insurance premiums. It may not be what most people think of as "socialized medicine", but it is a legitimate use of the term. Main Entry: socialized medicine Function: noun Date: 1937 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized Main Entry: socialized medicine : medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation
From: Jim Lovejoy on 22 Feb 2010 01:15 Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in news:nc73o51v9q6146tr8a9umbuo20v8813cur(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:35:39 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > <frostback2002(a)att.net> 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 risen...so 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. > Not if he's consistent. He's willing to pay higher costs for the illusion that he's not paying others costs. Why shouldn't he be willing to take the risk of falling victim to an epidemic for the same reasons?
From: Jim Lovejoy on 22 Feb 2010 01:33
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:28c504ae-1d6d-4f71-ac8a-2d4a36dcfada(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 21, 3:45�pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Feb 20, 10:39�am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:03:44 -0500, BAR wrote: >> > > In article <hvCfn.818$BD2....(a)newsfe14.iad>, dontwr...(a)gmail.com >> > > says... >> >> > >> Oh yeah ... and I suppose "manifest destiny" was an excuse for >> > >> imperialism. I'm sure the Mexicans weren't bothered at all by >> > >> the theft of Texas, and how much other land? >> >> > > War or the threat of war has determined the political and >> > > national boundaries of kingdoms and countries. >> >> > > One of the penalties of losing armed conflict is that your >> > > military will may be destroyed and you may lose some or all of >> > > your territory. >> >> > 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 th > e >> > losing end? >> >> This will happen at some point, as it did the the UK in the early to >> mid 20th century. If Americans continue to spend so excessively, it >> will happen a lot sooner. As China, India, Brazil and others continue >> to grow, they will have more and more fiscal power. As we fall into >> the category of self absorbed, seal entitled deadbeats we will >> decline. There is no free health care, no free housing and no free >> lunch. FWIW, IMHO western Europe is totally done, but they don't know >> it yet. They have no capacity to recover from this crisis. They >> consume much and produce next to nothing. > > If that is so, then why does the U.S. have a $60.5 billion trade > deficit with the EU? Because companies in the EU aren't paying thousands a year per employee on health insurance. One of the reasons that the US healthcare system needs to be reformed is that its destroying our competitiveness. Maybe for some things we can't compete with the low wage countries like China, India, and Indonesia. But there's no reason we can't compete with Europe, Canada and Japan, except for a disfunctional healthcare system that ads thousands a year, now approaching a thousand a month to each employee's labor cost. And bad as it is for the competitiveness of large business, what it does to small business is far worse. A lot of would be entrepreneurs with pre- existing conditions, don't dare leave the safety of their corporate healthcare. And others are either taking the risk illness wiping them out, or starting out with an anchor on their business. And what we need is the tinkering type reform we've seen proposed, but a Canada-like system, paid for with some version of a value-added tax, a tax that is paid on foreign imports as well as US output. Until we radically reform our healthcare, we are going to lose in competition to countries with healthcare that's not primarily the employer's expense. |