OT: Re: SOCIALISM = Evil
rvfulltime
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Kim
Castro
rvfulltime
Stalin = 25 to 50 million dead
Mao = 50 to 100 million dead
Hitler = 20 to 40 million dead
Pol Pot = 2 million dead
Lets not forget the Kims and Castos
I have an acquaintance that educated me on how life was in the workers paradise
of Russia. She lived there the first 45 years of her life until she moved to
the capitalist society of the U.S. of A. She is very happy to be here.
Bruce S
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:26 -0700, rvfulltime
> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>> Socialism =
>> Hitler
> I see you failed history.
>
> Tom
Were you unaware that Nazi was short for National Socialist Party?
Bruce
Lone Haranguer
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:26 -0700, rvfulltime
> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>> Socialism =
>> Hitler
> I see you failed history.
>
> Tom
Hitler's first party platforms were socialist in the extreme. Only
after he got in power did he make a deal with the army and wealthy
industrialists to
have Ernst Rohm and his left-wingers killed off so he could get the
support he needed from the right wing......where the money was.
Being socialists, they were too dumb to see that he had done a switch on
them until it was too late. By that time they were afraid to speak out.
Of his 25 points, at least 15 are of a socialist nature. Obama has
co-opted some of them.
LZ
*********************************
The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party
1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the
basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.
2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of
other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain
shall be abrogated.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of
our people and the settlement of our surplus population.
4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens.
Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our
countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.
5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners
and must be subject to the law of aliens.
6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the
State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public
office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the
province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.
We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration
whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard
to character and fitness.
7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure
that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and
earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole
population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We
demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2,
1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.
9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or
physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the
interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise
from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in
blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be
regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total
confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class,
the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented
cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be
given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by
the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national
requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners
without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The
abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to
the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc.,
are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering
of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious
German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach
into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility
of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The
curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to
practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of
citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We
demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their
station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national
health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile
labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of
compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible
encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of
the young.
22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of
a national (folk) army.
23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who
propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the
press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the
German language shall be German citizens.
(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express
permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.
(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German
newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that
the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression
of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be
suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and
literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk,
and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands
shall be dissolved.
24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state,
insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and
ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive
Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It
fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is
convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from
within on the pinciple:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a
strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by
the political central parliament of the whole State and all its
organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees
representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws
promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal
states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the
foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their
own lives.
Lone Haranguer
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:01:27 -0700, rvfulltime
> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>> Socialism is the greatest evil ever perpetrated against the human race.
>>
>
>
> acknowledged that Hitler was responsible for over 50 million dead.
> Second, he wasn't anywhere near a Socialist, he was a Fascist.
Your high school history teacher just repeated what his professors told him.
Hitler was a socialist and only after reaching power did he do a deal
with the army and industrialists. In the "night of the long knives" Hitler
kept his promise to the army and got rid of the left wing of his NAZI party.
>
> Since you know so little about history and facts, any other political
> views you may hold have no credibility whatsoever.
Look in the mirror and say it to yourself. High school history books
often do not match the actual historic facts.
>
> Tom, who promised myself I wouldn't get into politics again
> here.<sigh>
That was a good idea. Better to keep your mouth shut and have people
wonder how little you know than to open it and give them proof.
LZ
nothermark
<rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
Problem is the Conservatives are using the term as a pejorative for
everything they do not like. The issue is seldom really socialism.
Frank Howell
You gots to be kidd'n! Would collectivism sound better?
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
See # 7-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-23-24-25.
The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party
7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure
that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and
earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole
population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
Therefore we demand:
23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who
***********************************************
Sounds more like Obama every day.
LZ
rvfulltime
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:01:27 -0700, rvfulltime
> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>
> acknowledged that Hitler was responsible for over 50 million dead.
> Second, he wasn't anywhere near a Socialist, he was a Fascist.
>
> views you may hold have no credibility whatsoever.
>
> here.<sigh>
Hitler's Fascism was a form of Socialism, not so with Mussolini or Franco.
Hitler was the head of the National Socialist Party, a.k.a. Nazi.
I suggest that you're the one without knowledge of history.
rvfulltime
A lot of conservative confuse socialism with social welfare. They are not the
same. I don't make that confusion. Socialism is the government ownership of
business.
So are you trying to claim that those people were not evil? Are you trying to
claim that were not socialists?
nothermark
I am trying to claim that the Conservative talking heads have been
calling a lot of things socialism that are not really socialism. It
has become a flag to wave because it excites folks.
The folks listed were evil. I do think they were dictators looking
for an excuse and used socialism/communism as the excuse. We have
tried socialist communities in this country and they did not survive
but few if any folks were killed over it.
nothermark
Depends what we are talking about. Insurance is by it's nature
collectivist. Many folks put their money in and hope the pot will be
big enough to cover the expenses of the few who need to take money
out. Not "getting your money's worth" indicates you did not suffer
from the misfortune you are insuring against. Most of us are happy
not to have the misfortune. A few whine about anything.
Collectivism at the insurance level does not create a socialist
government or demand a dictator to control it. Trying to tie known
dictators to a squabble over who holds the pot does not promote a
meaningful conversation over the issue. In the case of US Health
insurance there is a lot of room fo rmeaningfull discussion so name
calling indicates folks with nothing usefull to say.
FWIW - it occured to me that the lottery is also collectivist similar
to insurance. I wonder hom many folks are whining about Obama's
socialised medicine while standing line to get their ticket. ;-)
Frank Howell
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:06:17 -0800, "Frank Howell"
> <fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
>
>> nothermark wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:26 -0700, rvfulltime
>>> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Socialism =
>>>> Hitler
>>>> Stalin
>>>> Mao
>>>> Pol Pot
>>>> Kim
>>>> Castro
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem is the Conservatives are using the term as a pejorative for
>>> everything they do not like. The issue is seldom really socialism.
>>
>> You gots to be kidd'n! Would collectivism sound better?
>
>
> Depends what we are talking about. Insurance is by it's nature
> collectivist. Many folks put their money in and hope the pot will be
> big enough to cover the expenses of the few who need to take money
> out. Not "getting your money's worth" indicates you did not suffer
> from the misfortune you are insuring against. Most of us are happy
> not to have the misfortune. A few whine about anything.
I think you missed the mark. :-)
collectivism:
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production
and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision
of a government.
>
> Collectivism at the insurance level does not create a socialist
> government or demand a dictator to control it. Trying to tie known
> dictators to a squabble over who holds the pot does not promote a
> meaningful conversation over the issue. In the case of US Health
> insurance there is a lot of room fo rmeaningfull discussion so name
> calling indicates folks with nothing usefull to say.
Insurance companies do not even remotley operate under any form of
collectivisim. The majority are corporations, which last time I remember are
private and not controlled by the "people."
>
> FWIW - it occured to me that the lottery is also collectivist similar
> to insurance. I wonder hom many folks are whining about Obama's
> socialised medicine while standing line to get their ticket. ;-)
No force is is used in running the lottery, it's participates do so on a
mutually voluntary basis. You can't say the same thing about Pelosi's
program. The only similarity is that both involve government regulation.
-- Frank Howell
Bruce S
You really don't understand the difference between voluntary and forced
involvement do you?
Bruce
rvfulltime
Insurance is not collectivist, it is risk management. You buy an insurance
policy to protect you from financial disaster. You pay a premium to an
insurance company based upon the risk of you suffering a financial loss. This
is the whole basis for life insurance, property insurance, performance bonds,
hole-in-one contests, and all sorts of strange policies issued by Lloyds.
Health insurance used to be this way, but many policies today that are called
health insurance no longer meet the definition of insurance. Government has
been and is still trying to turn "health insurance" into a social welfare
program, and as a result it is ceasing to meet the definition of insurance.
rvfulltime
So we are in agreement! At least about was socialism is.
Lone Haranguer
I don't know if they are still in business but a lot of rural townships
used to have "mutuals" which operated similar to a cooperative.
Premiums were cheap as long as the payout was less than the premiums
collected. However if a big hailstorm came through and the co-op paid
out or was liable for more money than they had in the kitty, each member
was assessed to help pay off the damages.
When I first bought my 80 acre farm (1963) the old buildings were
considered to have a low value and my first annual premium was $6.00.
I had to cancel since one of the requirements was that someone had to be
living on the premises. An owner of a local grocery store encouraged me
to rent it
to people on welfare so he could sell more groceries....but I declined.
LZ
Just plain Dusty
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:30:50 -0700, rvfulltime
> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:26 -0700, rvfulltime
>>> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Socialism =
>>>> Hitler
>>>> Stalin
>>>> Mao
>>>> Pol Pot
>>>> Kim
>>>> Castro
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem is the Conservatives are using the term as a pejorative for
>>> everything they do not like. The issue is seldom really socialism.
>>
>> A lot of conservative confuse socialism with social welfare. They
>> are not the same. I don't make that confusion. Socialism is the
>> government ownership of business.
>
> Or the Socialist Police Dept. Or the Socialist city bus lines. Etc.
> All, plus many others, are by definition, Socialist. So therefore they
> are all bad, according to the right wing wacko nut cases. You have
> zero authority to even speak on the subject because of your failure to
> even understand history, about who was a Socialist and wasn't.
>
>> So are you trying to claim that those people were not evil? Are you
>> trying to claim that were not socialists?
>
Big deal!
Fascism, socialism; while there's a technical distinction, they both amount
to the same thing: TOTALITARIAN CONTROL OF BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
LIVES OF THE PEOPLE!
This idiot notion that somehow facism is opposite of socialism is nonsense
being promulgated by the socialists as a futile "defense" against being
called out as the communists they aspire to be...
Dusty
--
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
gave him the White House based on the same credentials." -- Newt
Gingrich
Lone Haranguer
> a Fascist. He hated Communism. He was anything but a Socialist. You
> know just enough history to be dangerous. And wrong.
>
> Tom
He hated the communists because they were both fishing for the same fish.
Read his first platform containing his "25 points". At least 15 of them
are socialist ideas.
If you want to keep broadcasting your ignorance, feel free. After all
you had a history course in high school. <snicker>
LZ
Chuck Norris
--
From earners to yearners. Obamanomics!
From makers to takers. Obamanomics!
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
You are forgetting one thing wrt the current insurance broo-ha-ha.
Insurance is the spreading of risk to minimize individual losses.
Insurance companys are STILL paying for Katrina. They have had to
raise rates to try to come clear.
Chuck Norris
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:30:50 -0700, rvfulltime
><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>>nothermark wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:26 -0700, rvfulltime
>>> <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Socialism =
>>>> Hitler
>>>> Stalin
>>>> Mao
>>>> Pol Pot
>>>> Kim
>>>> Castro
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem is the Conservatives are using the term as a pejorative for
>>> everything they do not like. The issue is seldom really socialism.
>>
>>A lot of conservative confuse socialism with social welfare. They are not the
>>same. I don't make that confusion. Socialism is the government ownership of
>>business.
>>
>>So are you trying to claim that those people were not evil? Are you trying to
>>claim that were not socialists?
>
>I am trying to claim that the Conservative talking heads have been
>calling a lot of things socialism that are not really socialism. It
>has become a flag to wave because it excites folks.
>
Name one.
>The folks listed were evil. I do think they were dictators looking
>for an excuse and used socialism/communism as the excuse. We have
>tried socialist communities in this country and they did not survive
>but few if any folks were killed over it.
Socialism is inherently evil. Taking from one to give to another has
no equal on the scale of evil.
Chuck Norris
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:01:27 -0700, rvfulltime
><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>>Socialism is the greatest evil ever perpetrated against the human race.
>>
>
>> Hitler = 20 to 40 million dead
>
>You need to go back to High school history. First, it is widely
>acknowledged that Hitler was responsible for over 50 million dead.
>Second, he wasn't anywhere near a Socialist, he was a Fascist.
There is no practical difference between socialism and fascism. In
both cases the citizens are suppressed/repressed and have few, if any,
freedoms. Kinda like being killed with a .45 or a 30-06.
>
>Since you know so little about history and facts, any other political
>views you may hold have no credibility whatsoever.
>
>Tom, who promised myself I wouldn't get into politics again
>here.<sigh>
You shouldn't, Tom. When you do, you show everyone how ignorant you
are.
Chuck Norris
To further explain, murder may seem worse than socialism but murder
just takes a life. Socialism takes a persons incentives and
initiative.
nothermark
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
Collective in what they do, not collectivism by the political
definition.
>
>>
>> FWIW - it occured to me that the lottery is also collectivist similar
>> to insurance. I wonder hom many folks are whining about Obama's
>> socialised medicine while standing line to get their ticket. ;-)
>
>No force is is used in running the lottery, it's participates do so on a
>mutually voluntary basis. You can't say the same thing about Pelosi's
>program. The only similarity is that both involve government regulation.
>
>
>-- Frank Howell
>
Now I know how tightly you want to define collective. The problem
with the health care mess is not even Pelosi is saying the government
should own the Doctors. That breaks the definition as the government
would not own the means of production. Within limits profit would be
a function of how the Doc runs his office. Therefore it is not
collectivism by the accepted definition.
The closest thing anybody is talking about is forcing everybody to
play somehow. The private plans want it and the single payer folks
want it because they all do not want folks to be able to wait until
they need insurance to buy it. That is a far cry from either
socialism or collectivism.
Chuck Norris
>
>Like the Socialist fire departments (They used to be privately owned).
>Or the Socialist Police Dept. Or the Socialist city bus lines. Etc.
>All, plus many others, are by definition, Socialist. So therefore they
>are all bad, according to the right wing wacko nut cases. You have
>zero authority to even speak on the subject because of your failure to
>even understand history, about who was a Socialist and wasn't.
>
>>So are you trying to claim that those people were not evil? Are you trying to
>>claim that were not socialists?
>
>Yup. Hitler was NOT a Socialist. He was a Fascist.
>
A distinction w/o a difference.
>Tom
Tom, old boy, you are a certified IDIOT!
TonyD
"rvfulltime" <rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote in message
news:hd0c9s$d5b$1...@news.america.net...
If you're on social welfare, you're a "socialist"! Providing social welfare
makes one
a "socialist".
Frank Howell
Ok, then lets remove any sanctions for not getting health insurance, be it
private individuls or corporations and replace it with mutually voluntary
agreements. This way there is no ambiguity about who owns who and who
profits. Transparency I think they call it.
The only way profits can be limited, is the use of force as the final
arbitrator. With insurance, mandated through the use of force, costing the
same for young, old, enfeebled, diseased, healthy, chronically ill, we will
all pay more for health insurance in premiums or in taxes as by definition
everyone will be covered that wasn't covered before and that money will come
from you and me. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
--
Frank Howell
nothermark
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
You are describing the mess we have now. It is also broken for many
folks, costing a bundle extra for many more and the most expensive,
least productive plan in the first world. That is why folks want to
change it.
nothermark
wrote:
As well or better than you do. It's not a case of understanding it's
a matter of values.
nothermark
How does the insurance company figure out what to charge you and how
do they make money?
You are right it's risk management - managed by getting enough people
into the pool then costing it so that they get some extra to keep for
profit.
>
>Health insurance used to be this way, but many policies today that are called
>health insurance no longer meet the definition of insurance. Government has
>been and is still trying to turn "health insurance" into a social welfare
>program, and as a result it is ceasing to meet the definition of insurance.
If you are referring to welness payments it is not the government
driving it. They have been driven by policy holders wanting basic
needs covered as part of the policy.
nothermark
nothermark
<hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have heard the term socialized medicin and road to socialism from
both Rush and Beck. I wondered why I was hearing it from others and
made a point of listening to them to see if they were pushing it. BTW,
I really wish Pags would take over for Beck, he is a lot easier to
listen to. ;-)
>>
>>>The folks listed were evil. I do think they were dictators looking
>>>for an excuse and used socialism/communism as the excuse. We have
>>>tried socialist communities in this country and they did not survive
>>>but few if any folks were killed over it.
>>
>>Socialism is inherently evil. Taking from one to give to another has
>>no equal on the scale of evil.
>
>To further explain, murder may seem worse than socialism but murder
>just takes a life. Socialism takes a persons incentives and
>initiative.
Which is why it fails. The workers get tired of supporting the
drones. The next generation does not see the problems that lead to
the formation of a socialist community. Either or both pressures
ended the experiments here depending on the particular group.
nothermark
Not by the definition of "socialist". If you are on welfare you are a
recipient of the communities largess but do not necessarily have any
say in how the community is run and even less say in how private
industry is run.
Gil J
Click on 1948 Cartoon below - this cartoon is timeless and is just
as true today as it was in 1948! Maybe?
Look at this: 1948 Cartoon
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW - it occured to me that the lottery is also collectivist
>>> similar to insurance. I wonder hom many folks are whining about
>>> Obama's socialised medicine while standing line to get their
>>> ticket. ;-)
>>
>> You really don't understand the difference between voluntary and
>> forced involvement do you?
>>
>> Bruce
>
> As well or better than you do. It's not a case of understanding it's
> a matter of values.
Only a complete idiot could see any similarity between voluntarily buying a
lottery ticket, and being forced (at the point of a gun if necessary) to
purchase state run insurance. You demonstrate your stupidity more with
every post.
Bruce
Chuck Norris
>You are describing the mess we have now. It is also broken for many
>folks, costing a bundle extra for many more and the most expensive,
>least productive plan in the first world. That is why folks want to
>change it.
Shit, I wish you would trim the FAT.
Anyway, just who are the "folks". I bet you are talking about
politicians and their dem followers who, like you, ignore facts and
follow without thinking. There are only about 10M truly uninsured.
They may not even be that concerned since they haven't ever tried to
take care of themselves.
BTW, many of the 10M are between jobs and will cycle through so those
are transient numbers. I get weary of hearing dems say the insurance
co.s are reaping huge profits in light of reported (and verified)
earnings of a collective 2.5%.
One of the reasons our health care system is expensive is that we are
the largest innovators and inventors of health remedies. Did Mexico
come up with the polio vaccine? Did France develop the brachytherapy
seed implant for prostate cancer?
The list goes on and on.
We innovate, they use or not and the health results over the world
show it. And don't give me that shit about how we are at the bottom
of the list in longevity. We have freedom of movement meaning car
accidents. We have very high black on black murder. Lets take the
money you want to spend on health reform (insurance punishment) and
put it to correcting those maladies.
I worked on writing patents for a university doing cancer research.
From the time we got the application until the patent was granted was
an average of nearly half the life of the patent.
Chuck Norris
Don't forget, many/most insurance are still amortizing Katrina losses.
Chuck Norris
Just because 'social' precedes welfare does NOT mean it is
socialistic. That's ridiculous. In fact, private welfare is the
exact opposite of socialistic welfare.
nothermark
I totally agree with the cartoon. The problem we are having is Reagan
srippled the unions when he got away with firing the air traffic
controllers and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
outsourcing. The education business moved into grade inflation so we
now have acoutry run by "experts" who hae a piece of paer that says so
but they don'tknow what they are doing. The architects of the
Mortgage collapse are a good example. Then there was the switch of
the purpose of a company from creating product to make a profit to
maximizing the return for shareholders. The system is broken just
like the cartoon says it could happen.
In terms of healthcare the system could have fixed itself. They know
how as there are examples. There is no incentive to do that short of
government intervention. Competition is not the answer. that i sone
of the ism lies. Sometimes it is good and sometimes the best answer
is cooperation. It all depends on whether your goal is one winner or
everybody winning.
nothermark
<hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 7 Nov 2009 07:57:02 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>You are describing the mess we have now. It is also broken for many
>>folks, costing a bundle extra for many more and the most expensive,
>>least productive plan in the first world. That is why folks want to
>>change it.
>
>Shit, I wish you would trim the FAT.
>
>Anyway, just who are the "folks". I bet you are talking about
>politicians and their dem followers who, like you, ignore facts and
>follow without thinking. There are only about 10M truly uninsured.
>They may not even be that concerned since they haven't ever tried to
>take care of themselves.
Around here it's Doctors groups, various social agencies and some
closely held companies along with the heads of Ford and GM among
others. You area probably varies. Anybody not in the health care
management business is a potential supporter of fixing the problems.
>
>BTW, many of the 10M are between jobs and will cycle through so those
>are transient numbers. I get weary of hearing dems say the insurance
>co.s are reaping huge profits in light of reported (and verified)
>earnings of a collective 2.5%.
You would lose that bet around here. The trend is to put the health
care costs on the employee or government as much as possible. Often
part is to move to a high deductible plan for folks not making much
more than minimum wage. They literally cannot afford to get sick.
>
>One of the reasons our health care system is expensive is that we are
>the largest innovators and inventors of health remedies. Did Mexico
>come up with the polio vaccine? Did France develop the brachytherapy
>seed implant for prostate cancer?
Partly true. We are innovators though we are transferring that out of
the country as well. A major reason we are innovators is folks in
production see a better way and pursue it. Another reason is basic
research that has become a very low prioroty here but is going on in
China and India. I think China requires it in the case of large
companies.
>
>The list goes on and on.
>
>We innovate, they use or not and the health results over the world
>show it. And don't give me that shit about how we are at the bottom
>of the list in longevity. We have freedom of movement meaning car
>accidents. We have very high black on black murder. Lets take the
>money you want to spend on health reform (insurance punishment) and
>put it to correcting those maladies.
You won't get an arguement about fixing the problems but you might not
like some of my fixes. I consider overpopulation an issue.
>
>I worked on writing patents for a university doing cancer research.
>From the time we got the application until the patent was granted was
>an average of nearly half the life of the patent.
But did you need the patent to treat the patient?
nothermark
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
One of us does demonstrate reading comprehension and rational
thinking. I never advocated buying a lottery ticket.
Bruce S
You really are the stupidest person posting here. It was you who said a
government run lottery was the same collectivism as compulsory government
health insurance. I pointed out that one is voluntary, where as the other
is forced, meaning that they are in no way similar. Is it possible that any
functional person cannot see that difference?
Are you really so dense that you do not understand the moral difference
between letting a person make his own choices (even choices you disagree
with), and forcing that same person to do whatever you believe is good for
him? Forcing people to purchase health insurance (with the force of law -
meaning at the point of a gun) is forcing them to be government owned
slaves.
Bruce
Just plain Dusty
nothermark wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:00:51 -0500, "Gil J" <g...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
...
>> Look at this: 1948 Cartoon
>> http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
>
> I totally agree with the cartoon. The problem we are having is Reagan
> srippled the unions when he got away with firing the air traffic
> controllers
Not true! By the very nature of their contracts, they deserved to be
fired. Besides, no matter how you slice it, a "union worker" is simply
another thief with a different MO...
> and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
> outsourcing.
A business doesn't "move to finish" anything in order to do outsourcing.
They outsource because the cost of doing business with union thieves,
intrusive regulations, and onerous taxes make making a profit hard to do.
> The education business moved into grade inflation so we
> now have acoutry run by "experts" who hae a piece of paer that says so
> but they don'tknow what they are doing.
A pretty spot-on assessment. However education isn't so much a business as
it is a government regulated & mandated use of union labor in order to
inculcate hapless youngsters. Education will become a business, when
government is driven out of it and parents are allowed to take their
children and money to private schools. Then education will become a
business.
> The architects of the
> Mortgage collapse are a good example.
True enough. And now they have the gall to want to take charge of our
medical system. Will we foolish voters ever learn???
> Then there was the switch of
> the purpose of a company from creating product to make a profit to
> maximizing the return for shareholders.
Not at all true. A company exists for the benefit of it's owners and
shareholders. It exists in order to deliver a product or service at a
profit. And sometimes they die because their business model is broken.
> The system is broken just
> like the cartoon says it could happen.
Somewhat true...
>
> In terms of healthcare the system could have fixed itself.
Not likely. As long as government continues to meddle in it, NOTHING GOOD
WILL EVER COME OF ANYTHING THEY DO! There is not a single, successful,
government run of getting something done anywhere out there!
>They know
> how as there are examples. There is no incentive to do that short of
> government intervention.
Utter rubbish! Government IS NEVER THE ANSWER; it is ALWAYS the problem!
> Competition is not the answer.
Competition IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER! That's what makes us better, leaner,
faster, and cheaper. Sitting on our fat, government mandated ass has NEVER
accomplished a thing!
> that i sone
> of the ism lies. Sometimes it is good and sometimes the best answer
> is cooperation. It all depends on whether your goal is one winner or
> everybody winning.
It has been amply demonstrated throughout history that you can never have
everybody winning! Only the best can win...and by doing so they always
carry others along. But it's unable to carry those that can't, don't, or
won't help themselves. There will always be those that can't compete. In
an earlier time, they would have been the ones that became the meal for a
Saber-toothed tiger.
Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of leadership...and
you can see where that's gotten us...
L8r all,
Dusty
--
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
gave him the White House based on the same credentials." -- Newt
Gingrich
bill horne
Yep. It's time for people to reread Atlas Shrugged. Which I'm doing
now. It reads a lot like current events.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
bill horne
I wouldn't be very surprised if some Dem decided it would be a good
idea to fine people who don't buy lottery tickets. After all, those
who don't buy tickets aren't doing their fair share to fund HOPE,
pre-K, and education technology grants - which the GA lottery does.
It's for the children. It's our Duty to buy tickets.
Just plain Dusty
...
>> Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of
>> leadership...and you can see where that's gotten us...
>
> Yep. It's time for people to reread Atlas Shrugged. Which I'm doing
> now. It reads a lot like current events.
nothermark
Some of them. I loved the whine from a few that were going to have a
problem making a profit that year. As far as I know a profit is not
guaranteed every year. That's the nature of the business.
nothermark
wrote:
If you paid attention before you would know that I do not support
forced insurance. Pelosi is nicer than I am. She makes sure you get
it. I offer the option of in or out at some point like turning 21. If
you are in it's for life. If you are out it's for life. We need to
watch people die for lack of care. It brings home why we have
insurance.
Lone Haranguer
Madre" to sell tickets and give them guns for "encouraging" buyers.
LZ
Don Myers
wrote:
snipped
>
>Yep. It's time for people to reread Atlas Shrugged. Which I'm doing
>now. It reads a lot like current events.
Lots of luck. Rand may have been a pretty good prognosticater, but as
a novelist, she is all but unreadable.
Don M, who gave up about 2/3 or the way through
nothermark
<RV-dr...@OneAmeriREMOVETHIScanPatriot.com> wrote:
>You've missed the mark my friend,
>
>nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:00:51 -0500, "Gil J" <g...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>...
>>> Look at this: 1948 Cartoon
>>> http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
>>
>> I totally agree with the cartoon. The problem we are having is Reagan
>> srippled the unions when he got away with firing the air traffic
>> controllers
>Not true! By the very nature of their contracts, they deserved to be
>fired. Besides, no matter how you slice it, a "union worker" is simply
>another thief with a different MO...
And a business owner is a slave driver by another name.
Truth is there is a lot of room for both sides to throw mud. OTOH the
unions moved the bottom of the wage pool up lettig you ride on top of
them. Without them you would be worth a lot less.
>
>> and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
>> outsourcing.
>A business doesn't "move to finish" anything in order to do outsourcing.
>They outsource because the cost of doing business with union thieves,
>intrusive regulations, and onerous taxes make making a profit hard to do.
Let me see, the workers want safe work places and the people want
clean air and water and everybody wants services that somebody has to
pay for... Oh, but that is somebody else that should pay those taxes.
>
>> The education business moved into grade inflation so we
>> now have acoutry run by "experts" who hae a piece of paer that says so
>> but they don'tknow what they are doing.
>A pretty spot-on assessment. However education isn't so much a business as
>it is a government regulated & mandated use of union labor in order to
>inculcate hapless youngsters. Education will become a business, when
>government is driven out of it and parents are allowed to take their
>children and money to private schools. Then education will become a
>business.
Educationis a business. The higher the education level the more it is
a business. That is why we get grade inflation and social promotion
and a host of other problems.
If you really want to have fun tell a group of educators that college
has become so important in our lives that 4 years of college should be
rolled into the public school system.
>
>> The architects of the
>> Mortgage collapse are a good example.
>True enough. And now they have the gall to want to take charge of our
>medical system. Will we foolish voters ever learn???
Private industry blew up the mortgage system. They paid the
government to facilitate it but it was done by private industry.
>
>> Then there was the switch of
>> the purpose of a company from creating product to make a profit to
>> maximizing the return for shareholders.
>Not at all true. A company exists for the benefit of it's owners and
>shareholders. It exists in order to deliver a product or service at a
>profit. And sometimes they die because their business model is broken.
Warren Buffet and you would disagree. I wonder if Carl will offer his
insight.
>
>> The system is broken just
>> like the cartoon says it could happen.
>Somewhat true...
>
>>
>> In terms of healthcare the system could have fixed itself.
>Not likely. As long as government continues to meddle in it, NOTHING GOOD
>WILL EVER COME OF ANYTHING THEY DO! There is not a single, successful,
>government run of getting something done anywhere out there!
>
The do mail better than Fedex, healthcare under medicare is a model of
efficiency, do you want private police and fire departments? There is
a long list. The government provides what the voters support.
>>They know
>> how as there are examples. There is no incentive to do that short of
>> government intervention.
>Utter rubbish! Government IS NEVER THE ANSWER; it is ALWAYS the problem!
>
>> Competition is not the answer.
>Competition IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER! That's what makes us better, leaner,
>faster, and cheaper. Sitting on our fat, government mandated ass has NEVER
>accomplished a thing!
More Koolaide
>
>> that i sone
>> of the ism lies. Sometimes it is good and sometimes the best answer
>> is cooperation. It all depends on whether your goal is one winner or
>> everybody winning.
>It has been amply demonstrated throughout history that you can never have
>everybody winning! Only the best can win...and by doing so they always
>carry others along. But it's unable to carry those that can't, don't, or
>won't help themselves. There will always be those that can't compete. In
>an earlier time, they would have been the ones that became the meal for a
>Saber-toothed tiger.
>
>Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of leadership...and
>you can see where that's gotten us...
>
>
>L8r all,
>Dusty
Yeah, my top level management would qualify. All that education and
not a clue.
;-)
Frank Howell
In 1965 the estimated cost of Medicare part A for 1990 was $9 bil. In 1990
the actual cost was $67 bil.
The Midicaid special hospital subisdy was estimated in 1987 to cost $100mil.
The actual cost in 1992 was $11bil.
Anyone who believes any politician's BS on costs, be they Democrat or
Republican is trying to avoid reality.
Politicians will say anything to get elected.
My prediction is that no matter what health bill is passed, by the time it
is scheduled to go in effect, we all will know the awful truth. We are
bankrupt.
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
will actually be better than what we have now are mentally bankrupt.
LZ
Frank Howell
I liked the Fountainhead, as I found it better read. As for the move, I
never did care for Gary Coopers stilted delivery. Clearly miscasted.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
They say the Devil is in the details. I can't wait to see how many Lucifers
are in this 1900+ page bill.
--
Frank Howell
Chuck Norris
>On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800, "Just plain Dusty"
><RV-dr...@OneAmeriREMOVETHIScanPatriot.com> wrote:
>
>>You've missed the mark my friend,
>>
>>nothermark wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:00:51 -0500, "Gil J" <g...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>...
>>>> Look at this: 1948 Cartoon
>>>> http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
>>>
>>> I totally agree with the cartoon. The problem we are having is Reagan
>>> srippled the unions when he got away with firing the air traffic
>>> controllers
>>Not true! By the very nature of their contracts, they deserved to be
>>fired. Besides, no matter how you slice it, a "union worker" is simply
>>another thief with a different MO...
>
>And a business owner is a slave driver by another name.
Bull. No one forces you to work for a slave driver. Purely voluntary.
I have walked away from ass holes before. Anyone can
>
>Truth is there is a lot of room for both sides to throw mud. OTOH the
>unions moved the bottom of the wage pool up lettig you ride on top of
>them. Without them you would be worth a lot less.
>
>
>>
>>> and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
>>> outsourcing.
>>A business doesn't "move to finish" anything in order to do outsourcing.
>>They outsource because the cost of doing business with union thieves,
>>intrusive regulations, and onerous taxes make making a profit hard to do.
>
>Let me see, the workers want safe work places and the people want
>clean air and water and everybody wants services that somebody has to
>pay for... Oh, but that is somebody else that should pay those taxes.
>
>>
>>> The education business moved into grade inflation so we
>>> now have acoutry run by "experts" who hae a piece of paer that says so
>>> but they don'tknow what they are doing.
>>A pretty spot-on assessment. However education isn't so much a business as
>>it is a government regulated & mandated use of union labor in order to
>>inculcate hapless youngsters. Education will become a business, when
>>government is driven out of it and parents are allowed to take their
>>children and money to private schools. Then education will become a
>>business.
>
>Education is a business. The higher the education level the more it is
Just plain Dusty
...
>> Not true! By the very nature of their contracts, they deserved to be
>> fired. Besides, no matter how you slice it, a "union worker" is
>> simply another thief with a different MO...
>
> And a business owner is a slave driver by another name.
for him. The union thugs have to get government to pass laws permitting
them the unfettered right to interfere in my business and telling me how it
should be run.
> Truth is there is a lot of room for both sides to throw mud. OTOH the
True enough.
> unions moved the bottom of the wage pool up lettig you ride on top of
> them. Without them you would be worth a lot less.
No they didn't. You can't raise the level of a swimming pool by bailing
from the deep end to the shallow end. All they did was raise the cost of
everything until we couldn't easily sell things against foreign and/or
non-union competition.
>>> and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
>>> outsourcing.
>> A business doesn't "move to finish" anything in order to do
>> outsourcing. They outsource because the cost of doing business with
>> union thieves, intrusive regulations, and onerous taxes make making
>> a profit hard to do.
>
> Let me see, the workers want safe work places and the people want
To which they're entitled.
> clean air and water and everybody wants services that somebody has to
Everybody wants clean air and water, and companies shouldn't be able to
pollute or despoil 'em at will. That, however, has NOTHING to do with the
thug called a 'union worker'.
> pay for... Oh, but that is somebody else that should pay those taxes.
A non-sequitur . You can't hammer a company with taxes and regulations and
then expect them to be able to function where they're at. The net result
to the local economy is the same whether a company moves its operation
overseas or if it shuts the doors and goes out of business.
...
>>> The architects of the
>>> Mortgage collapse are a good example.
>> True enough. And now they have the gall to want to take charge of
>> our medical system. Will we foolish voters ever learn???
>
> Private industry blew up the mortgage system. They paid the
Incorrect. Government meddling in the private industry is what caused
that. Private industry didn't create, mandate, fund, nor run either Fannie
Mae of Freddie Mac. Nor did they lobby insolvent home owners to use their
services, nor force insurance companies to underwrite their schemes.
> government to facilitate it but it was done by private industry.
It's not "private" when Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Christopher Dodd, and
the CRA rules from the Carter administration are imposed upon those GSE's.
...
>>> In terms of healthcare the system could have fixed itself.
>> Not likely. As long as government continues to meddle in it,
>> NOTHING GOOD WILL EVER COME OF ANYTHING THEY DO! There is not a
>> single, successful, government run of getting something done
>> anywhere out there!
> The do mail better than Fedex,
Then clearly one of us doesn't understand what it means to do business on
your own, at a profit, and without huge government subsidies (i.e. running
at bankruptcy filing level).
> healthcare under medicare is a model of
> efficiency,
Then one of us doesn't understand the terrible intractability of getting
service from them, nor the purpose or "cost" of doing cost-shifting to
those that didn't ask for that additional "tax" on their costs...
> do you want private police and fire departments? There is
Yes! As a matter of fact, I do! Those that already exist are work well
and do so without constant subsidies.
> a long list. The government provides what the voters support.
Probably true, but sidesteps the issue of what are the voters entitled to
as opposed to what they want.
...
>>> Competition is not the answer.
>> Competition IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER! That's what makes us better,
>> leaner, faster, and cheaper. Sitting on our fat, government
>> mandated ass has NEVER accomplished a thing!
>
> More Koolaide
Yes. You never seem to run out, do you? Nothing's gotten better, nothings
gotten less expensive, yet you continue to rave on as if the only thing
wrong is that I can't seem to grasp the embetterment you're trying to
peddle.
Competition makes the Caribou faster, the wolf faster, and keeps the
population healthy. Everything always benefits from
competition...including humans...it's what we were designed for...
>>> ... Sometimes it is good and sometimes the best answer
>>> is cooperation. It all depends on whether your goal is one winner
>>> or everybody winning.
>> It has been amply demonstrated throughout history that you can never
>> have everybody winning! Only the best can win...and by doing so
>> they always carry others along. But it's unable to carry those that
>> can't, don't, or won't help themselves. There will always be those
>> that can't compete. In an earlier time, they would have been the
>> ones that became the meal for a Saber-toothed tiger.
>>
>> Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of
>> leadership...and you can see where that's gotten us...
...
> Yeah, my top level management would qualify. All that education and
> not a clue.
Probably why you're left with the awkward view you hold...(:-o)!
Just plain Dusty
...
> They say the Devil is in the details. I can't wait to see how many
> Lucifers are in this 1900+ page bill.
my own...(:-o)!