OT: Clinton portrait unveiling
Neil Bell
speech and the Clinton speech. just kind remarks and civility.
My only comment is that it would be so very good for us all if the
political candidates could simply address the ISSUES and stop making
personal attacks and false characterizations. I am so very tired of
"hit pieces" from all sides.
Just one old man's opinion....
Neil Bell
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully
as when they do it from religious conviction."
-- Blaise Pascal
For e-mail replies remove the "notreally."
Briarroot
>
> I watched the ceremony this morning and was impressed by both the Bush
> speech and the Clinton speech. just kind remarks and civility.
Heheh. Politicians are always at their best when they're
patting each other on the back, even ideological enemies.
The real business of politicians is making themselves look
good, and when there is no threat of a showdown between them
(Clinton has been avoiding comment about the election), they're
only too happy to "smile for the camera."
> My only comment is that it would be so very good for us all if the
> political candidates could simply address the ISSUES and stop making
> personal attacks and false characterizations. I am so very tired of
> "hit pieces" from all sides.
Yes, but when did they *ever* do that? ;-)
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Dunbar in a Connoisseur poker
Tom Mack
now they have to do it forever.
Tom Mack
ip...@ptd.net
> It was bad enough that the Clintons defiled the White House for 8 years,
> now they have to do it forever.
>
> Tom Mack
>
Life sure am funny ain't it?
I would guess if you could eliminate all portraits of your choice, starting
with FDR, the only one's hanging in the White House would be Eisenhower,
Reagan, Ford, Bush, and a special spot being held for Junior.
Remember those postings about people renting space in your head? Time for
some of you folks to let Clinton go. As you'll never allow yourself to be
objective about his 8 years, he's only just going to haunt you.
Time to call 1-800-Exorcist. End of story.
Nizo
jlruble
guy, he'll pat you on the back and piss in your pocket." Seems like he was
talking about most (if not all) politicians.
SCOTTY
"Briarroot" <woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote in message
news:40CDD7D1...@iwonantispam.com...
jlruble
<ip...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:BCF365A3.3F62B%ip...@ptd.net...
Nizo
I would add Harry Truman (one of the most courageous) and Jimmy Carter (one
of the most moral) . And, I would have been happy to let Clinton go before
the eight years of Hillary's reign.
SCOTTY
Neil Bell
wrote:
>It was bad enough that the Clintons defiled the White House for 8 years,
>now they have to do it forever.
>
>Tom Mack
I suppose I should have expected a few dumb responses that totally
missed the point. Hatred dies slowly doesn't it?
Steven Fowler
<neil...@notreally.att.net> wrote:
>I watched the ceremony this morning and was impressed by both the Bush
>speech and the Clinton speech. just kind remarks and civility.
>
>My only comment is that it would be so very good for us all if the
>political candidates could simply address the ISSUES and stop making
>personal attacks and false characterizations. I am so very tired of
>"hit pieces" from all sides.
>
>Just one old man's opinion....
>Neil Bell
>
I agree, Neil. I don't remember when politics became so personal. I
saw a news report remembering Reagan. They reminded me that Reagan
and Tip O'Neil got along quite well despite obvious political
differences.
Steven
Tim Daneliuk
I agree. But if they are gonna have his picture on the mantle (and they
should), the least they could do would be to make it anatomically
correct and show Hillary's legs on upside down as they are in real life.
Also, there should be a place in the picture for Monica as well. After
all, _she_ defined his presidency much moreso than Hillary. Perhaps
just a head and shoulders shot of her near the bottom of the image
looking up would be about right ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk
> I watched the ceremony this morning and was impressed by both the Bush
> speech and the Clinton speech. just kind remarks and civility.
>
> My only comment is that it would be so very good for us all if the
> political candidates could simply address the ISSUES and stop making
> personal attacks and false characterizations. I am so very tired of
> "hit pieces" from all sides.
>
> Just one old man's opinion....
> Neil Bell
>
I love it when they argue and fight. The more they lash out at one
another, the less they get done. The less they do, the happier I
am. I am all for politicians that accomplish absolutely NOTHING ...
ip...@ptd.net
> ip...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>>
>>> It was bad enough that the Clintons defiled the White House for 8 years,
>>> now they have to do it forever.
>>>
>>> Tom Mack
>>>
>>
>>
>> Life sure am funny ain't it?
>>
>> I would guess if you could eliminate all portraits of your choice, starting
>> with FDR, the only one's hanging in the White House would be Eisenhower,
>> Reagan, Ford, Bush, and a special spot being held for Junior.
>>
>> Remember those postings about people renting space in your head? Time for
>> some of you folks to let Clinton go. As you'll never allow yourself to be
>> objective about his 8 years, he's only just going to haunt you.
>>
>> Time to call 1-800-Exorcist. End of story.
>>
>> Nizo
>>
>
> I agree. But if they are gonna have his picture on the mantle (and they
> should), the least they could do would be to make it anatomically
> correct and show Hillary's legs on upside down as they are in real life.
> Also, there should be a place in the picture for Monica as well. After
> all, _she_ defined his presidency much moreso than Hillary. Perhaps
> just a head and shoulders shot of her near the bottom of the image
> looking up would be about right ...
I know you're taking a stab at humor here Tim, but did you have to rely on
the worn out cliches of Hillary's legs and Monicagate?
We just went through a week of some folks taking personal shots at Reagan.
If we're to have rules, let's have them apply in everybody's sandbox.
Now I certainly want to avoid a "My Democrat is better than your Republican"
argument, as I find very few politicians of late worth defending. I
consider myself a political egalitarian, I think they all suck.
Nizo
Tim Daneliuk
>
>>ip...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It was bad enough that the Clintons defiled the White House for 8 years,
>>>>now they have to do it forever.
>>>>
>>>>Tom Mack
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Life sure am funny ain't it?
>>>
>>>I would guess if you could eliminate all portraits of your choice, starting
>>>with FDR, the only one's hanging in the White House would be Eisenhower,
>>>Reagan, Ford, Bush, and a special spot being held for Junior.
>>>
>>>Remember those postings about people renting space in your head? Time for
>>>some of you folks to let Clinton go. As you'll never allow yourself to be
>>>objective about his 8 years, he's only just going to haunt you.
>>>
>>>Time to call 1-800-Exorcist. End of story.
>>>
>>>Nizo
>>>
>>
>>I agree. But if they are gonna have his picture on the mantle (and they
>>should), the least they could do would be to make it anatomically
>>correct and show Hillary's legs on upside down as they are in real life.
>>Also, there should be a place in the picture for Monica as well. After
>>all, _she_ defined his presidency much moreso than Hillary. Perhaps
>>just a head and shoulders shot of her near the bottom of the image
>>looking up would be about right ...
>
>
> I know you're taking a stab at humor here Tim, but did you have to rely on
> the worn out cliches of Hillary's legs and Monicagate?
Obviously not. I promise to do better next time. There is clearly
a lot more entertaining material there than those old topics, I should
have done better ....
>
> We just went through a week of some folks taking personal shots at Reagan.
> If we're to have rules, let's have them apply in everybody's sandbox.
Reagan died. I promise to not make unpleasant public comments about
Cliton when he dies. In the mean time, while he is alive, I shall continue
to make fun of our first Trailer Trash President and his entourage'.
>
> Now I certainly want to avoid a "My Democrat is better than your Republican"
> argument, as I find very few politicians of late worth defending. I
> consider myself a political egalitarian, I think they all suck.
Yes they do. But the key to keeping them benign is to make sure they
continue to hack away at each other so much that they have no time
to actually do anything. I personally favor a 12 month a year election
season, each and every year, for all Federal elected officals. They would
be so busy snarking at each other, the rest of us would get to live
as free citizens. Kind of like creating a "B Ark" as described by
Douglas Adams in "The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy"...
>
> Nizo
ip...@ptd.net
Okay, Nizo's moderating this thread. Tim had his say, I had mine. In the
whole scheme of things both amount to the significance of a teardrop in the
ocean. It ain't goin' nowhere.On to more important matters like, have you
purchased your Nizoware????
Tim Daneliuk
I keep meaning to, but I cannot find the link to the Eldridge Cleaver-
style pants. You know the ones I mean. You DO have them don't you????
runamuck
Regards
runamuck
<ip...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:BCF3C29B.3F695%ip...@ptd.net...
Jim Warren
ago?
History will be kind to Bill Clinton's eight years of peace and
prosperity, and IMHO, deservedly so.
Whatever anyone thinks of the silliness that surrounded his supposedly
private life, I'd trade the Clinton years for the current times in a
heartbeat.
ip...@ptd.net
> ip...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>> Okay, Nizo's moderating this thread. Tim had his say, I had mine. In the
>> whole scheme of things both amount to the significance of a teardrop in the
>> ocean. It ain't goin' nowhere.On to more important matters like, have you
>> purchased your Nizoware????
>>
>> Nizo
>> http://www.cafeshops.com/nizoware
>>
>
> I keep meaning to, but I cannot find the link to the Eldridge Cleaver-
> style pants. You know the ones I mean. You DO have them don't you????
I only wore them once. Everyone laughed at me and called me Eldridge
Cleaver-ed, if ya' know what I mean.
Nizo
jlruble
"Jim Warren" <pisca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb3a19ed.04061...@posting.google.com...
Only problem with that is you would have to have 12 years of a conservative
President, plus a Republican Congress, to set it up. Do you really think
that Hillary waved her magic wand (Bill had other things to do with his) and
turned on a stock market boom?
SCOTTY
Joseph M. LaVigne
We recently had a thread about the best presidents in the last 100 years
on ASC, and after serious pondering, I placed Clinton somewhere around
3rd or 4th (GW oesn't get ranked until he is out of office in another 4
years).
I am about as far to the right as you can get for most issues, but
Clinton's legacy involves working well with the Conservative House and
Senate, and doing some fairly conservative things, even if he was
dragged kicking and screaming into some of them. Had the whole sex
scandal thing never happened, he may even have crept up a spot.
I guess it pays to not tie yourself to either of the 2 majors (the
RepubliCrats...)
--
Joe LaVigne
http://www.hits-buffalo.com
jlavigne AT hits-buffalo com
Briarroot
>
> We recently had a thread about the best presidents in the last 100 years
> on ASC, and after serious pondering, I placed Clinton somewhere around
> 3rd or 4th (GW oesn't get ranked until he is out of office in another 4
> years).
>
> I am about as far to the right as you can get for most issues, but
> Clinton's legacy involves working well with the Conservative House and
> Senate, and doing some fairly conservative things, even if he was
> dragged kicking and screaming into some of them. Had the whole sex
> scandal thing never happened, he may even have crept up a spot.
I think we were *lucky* we escaped his busy-body wife's
Universal Health Care initiative. I'm glad he was in the
habit of ignoring her. :-/
Regards,
Tim Parker ... VA#1 in a Savinelli blast billiard
Scoop
> I think we were *lucky* we escaped his busy-body wife's
> Universal Health Care initiative. I'm glad he was in the
> habit of ignoring her. :-/
So instead we end up with the local municipal and county run hospitals' ERs
swamped with people who can't afford insurance, can't afford preventative
medical care, and sure as heck won't pay the bill when it comes from the
hospital, which means that we end up paying for them anyway, at a cost that
is much higher than if we just provided them health coverage.
Yep, glad we avoided that money trap.
Scoop
Todd Benson
You're wrong!
Hah! Deal with that!
Seriously, there has yet to be a national health care system that really
works. There is a reason why we lead the world in medical break throughs
and advances. There is money in it. From what I understand of the Canadian
and English systems, they aren't a good as what we have here. And, I work
in a government office, and the government isn't always noted for their
efficient and effective workforce. Rarely does the government do something
as well as a private company if there is money to be made.
It seems to me that one of the big problems is lawsuits and the uninsured.
And we do end up paying for that in higher insurance premiums. But compared
to what other countries have to pay in taxes for their health care, which
isn't as good as the care here if you have insurance, it's a barging.
AND, once you nationalize health care, you really give the government the
ability to tell you what to do. If everyone has to pay for your health
care, smoking WILL be banned because no one wants to have to pay for your
health problems from smoking. That argument will permeate into many
different aspects of your life. It's already used to a big extent by the
anti's, as well as those passing seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc.
Bottom line is that many people that don't have health care that is either
provided by the job or the government are unwilling to obtain it on their
own. We would rather the money go for phones, a new car, a new house, cell
phones, cable, internet access, etc.
Disclaimer: I may, and probably am, wrong about many of the above points.
This is simply my point of view. Flame away, but please be gentle. :)
--
TGB
http://members.cox.net/tbenson37/
"Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote in message
news:av9Ac.118879$Ly.5584@attbi_s01...
Scoop
"Todd Benson" <tben...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:U3aAc.15298$wS2.10073@okepread03...
> Alright, I have to say something. :)
>
> You're wrong!
>
> Hah! Deal with that!
> Bottom line is that many people that don't have health care that is either
> provided by the job or the government are unwilling to obtain it on their
> own. We would rather the money go for phones, a new car, a new house,
cell
> phones, cable, internet access, etc.
>
> Disclaimer: I may, and probably am, wrong about many of the above points.
> This is simply my point of view. Flame away, but please be gentle. :)
OK, I have something to say.
You're wrong! Hah! Deal with it! Or something like that...
At any rate, it's been shown that the majority of those not carrying
insurance are working poor who cannot get benefits through their workplace,
and cannot afford them on their own. It's not about new cars, it's about
food on the table.
And there are places, like Denmark, where the health system is as good as
ours.
Scoop
Scoop
btw - that last post was meant to be a light-hearted exchange.
Scoop
thinking, darn, Im headed for killfile land again
Todd Benson
--
TGB
http://members.cox.net/tbenson37/
"Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rwcAc.67796$Sw.57808@attbi_s51...
Bob Rhode a.k.a. TBomb
>
> You're wrong!
>
> Hah! Deal with that!
Apologies in advance but boy did you touch a nerve here.
>
> Seriously, there has yet to be a national health care system that really
> works. There is a reason why we lead the world in medical break throughs
> and advances. There is money in it. From what I understand of the Canadian
> and English systems, they aren't a good as what we have here. And, I work
> in a government office, and the government isn't always noted for their
> efficient and effective workforce. Rarely does the government do something
> as well as a private company if there is money to be made.
Last time I checked the Post Office was gov't owned, is turning a
profit, and I just watched them get a $.37 letter to me from 1/2 way
across the country in one, count 'em one, business day. You're
telling me paying for one federal program is going to be more
efficient than bankrolling 1400+ insurance companies' layers of
management? In case you haven't filed a claim in a while those folks
are dedicated to finding loopholes and exclusions in existing policies
while making very sure that premiums are paid.
>
> It seems to me that one of the big problems is lawsuits and the uninsured.
> And we do end up paying for that in higher insurance premiums. But compared
> to what other countries have to pay in taxes for their health care, which
> isn't as good as the care here if you have insurance, it's a barging.
It's a barging all right. Ever tried to file a lawsuit aagainst a
doctor who's misdiagnosed you? I have and good luck. And for those
pesky uninsured if we'd just let them die off things would be ever so
much simpler. And while we're at it let's put the elderly to sleep,
and mental defectives, and homosexuals, and why not Jews and gypsies
too while we're at it? Oh yeah, I guess that was tried by someone or
another during the mid-20th century some place in Europe.
>
> AND, once you nationalize health care, you really give the government the
> ability to tell you what to do. If everyone has to pay for your health
> care, smoking WILL be banned because no one wants to have to pay for your
> health problems from smoking. That argument will permeate into many
> different aspects of your life. It's already used to a big extent by the
> anti's, as well as those passing seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc.
Like government isn't doing that already at the urging of private
insurance companies?
>
> Bottom line is that many people that don't have health care that is either
> provided by the job or the government are unwilling to obtain it on their
> own. We would rather the money go for phones, a new car, a new house, cell
> phones, cable, internet access, etc.
You forgot a few things that that $500 or $600 a month ends up going
to if you are working poor without insurance. Luxury items like food
and clothing and shelter.
>
> Disclaimer: I may, and probably am, wrong about many of the above points.
> This is simply my point of view. Flame away, but please be gentle. :)
I'm trying, heaven knows I'm trying, but I'm a tad biased. After
being steadily employed for the last 30 years I was laid off and found
a new job last year. Unfortunately I was foolish enough to have my
heart attack one month before my new insurance took effect. So now
once I'm back at work I have a choice between paying this off for the
rest of my working life or declaring bankruptcy. The proverbial
choice between cancer and polio.
>
> --
> TGB
> http://members.cox.net/tbenson37/
Bob - stepping off his soapbox now.
Briarroot
What you've described is unfortunate, but it is actually
much cheaper than creating a huge new federal bureaucracy
to administer universal health care. Or would you like to
see a 50% income tax? What if it takes 75% to pay for?
I have no objection if you would like to donate any or all
of your personal income to the poor and those in need of
dire medical attention. I have major objections when you
send men with guns to my house (tax collectors) to make me
do the same. Health care costs are high because of, not in
spite of, government intervention. No government agency, be
it federal state or local, should own or run a hospital.
No government agency should pay for people's health care
unless they are combat veterans of the Armed Forces whose
disabilities are the result of their service to the nation.
If you think public health care is such a panacea, you must
have never visited a Veterans Administration hospital. They
are scandalously bad news, but offer a good picture of what
universal health care will look like. If Public Health Care
comes to pass, the wealthy will purchase their health care
from the private medical sector which will be *much* better
than what is available from the government. There will never
be equality, nor should there be. Equal opportunity, not
equal rewards. Good health care is not a right, it is a
reward.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
> Yep, glad we avoided that money trap.
If we got rid of all governmental intrusion and let the free
market determine costs, (and that would include protecting
doctors from outrageously large lawsuits) we'd *all* be a lot
better off and health care costs would become more realistic.
The government should confine it's relationship with medicine
to licensing and regulation, it should *never* become involved
as a provider.
Then the is the problem of liberty. If, as a consequence of
taxpayer funded health care, you and I will no longer be
allowed to smoke tobacco, would you see that was positive
outcome? There is a very real possibility that what was
formerly understood to be fundamental to the American way
of life, personal liberty, will be gradually extinguished by
the imposition of the new idea that *your* body and it's care,
is paid for by your neighbors. If taxpayers, the vast majority
of whom are non-smokers, are paying for *your* health care costs,
then they have a legitimate legal claim that will eventually
enable them to outlaw types of behavior that they consider overly
expensive. Can there be any doubt that tobacco usage will appear
high on their list of things to be banned?
Sorry, but Universal Health Care is Communism. It is *not* a
future to look forward to.
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Dunbar in a no-name billiard
Briarroot
?
> OK, I have something to say.
>
> You're wrong! Hah! Deal with it! Or something like that...
>
> At any rate, it's been shown that the majority of those not carrying
> insurance are working poor who cannot get benefits through their workplace,
> and cannot afford them on their own. It's not about new cars, it's about
> food on the table.
>
> And there are places, like Denmark, where the health system is as good as
> ours.
What is Denmark's personal income tax rate?
Briarroot
>
> I'm trying, heaven knows I'm trying, but I'm a tad biased. After
> being steadily employed for the last 30 years I was laid off and found
> a new job last year. Unfortunately I was foolish enough to have my
> heart attack one month before my new insurance took effect. So now
> once I'm back at work I have a choice between paying this off for the
> rest of my working life or declaring bankruptcy. The proverbial
> choice between cancer and polio.
Bob, why do you suppose health care costs are so high?
Can you think of any other business prices itself out of
the reach of those to whom it wishes to sell its services?
For any ordinary business that would be suicide, but for
health care it seems like the norm. Why?
Why do people have to buy insurance for health care?
Why don't health insurance companies compete with each
other to offer the lowest rates and the best services?
Why is the health care business (and it *is* a business)
unlike the food industry?
There is something wrong with the health care system in
America, all right, but you're mistaken if you think more
taxpayer funding is going to fix it. More taxpayer funding
will just make it *worse* because costs will not go down,
and taxes *will* go up.
Joseph M. LaVigne
woo...@iwonantispam.com says...
>
> I think we were *lucky* we escaped his busy-body wife's
> Universal Health Care initiative. I'm glad he was in the
> habit of ignoring her. :-/
I am not so sure we have escaped it, though. Most likely, just put it
off for a while...
Joseph M. LaVigne
says...
So, instead of Hillary Care, which had all of its root in evil, why not
expand Medicare/Medicaid into a low-income, pay as you can system?
Have the system financed by insurance companies that are already taking
premiums and helping to pay for the uninsured. Set different income
levels, and make it a rule that you are not eligible if yur company
offers insurance.
Also, make firm dollar amounts for maximums, to dissuade employers from
stopping their insurance programs to push people into the new system.
A mix seems to be the best way, which means it will never happen.
Todd Benson
news:f3de9368.04061...@posting.google.com...
> "Todd Benson" <tben...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<U3aAc.15298$wS2.10073@okepread03>...
> > Alright, I have to say something. :)
> >
> > You're wrong!
> >
> > Hah! Deal with that!
>
> Apologies in advance but boy did you touch a nerve here.
Don't apologise. And, if I came off sounding uncaring, that wasn't the way
it was meant.
> >
> > Seriously, there has yet to be a national health care system that really
> > works. There is a reason why we lead the world in medical break
throughs
> > and advances. There is money in it. From what I understand of the
Canadian
> > and English systems, they aren't a good as what we have here. And, I
work
> > in a government office, and the government isn't always noted for their
> > efficient and effective workforce. Rarely does the government do
something
> > as well as a private company if there is money to be made.
>
> Last time I checked the Post Office was gov't owned, is turning a
> profit, and I just watched them get a $.37 letter to me from 1/2 way
> across the country in one, count 'em one, business day. You're
> telling me paying for one federal program is going to be more
> efficient than bankrolling 1400+ insurance companies' layers of
> management? In case you haven't filed a claim in a while those folks
> are dedicated to finding loopholes and exclusions in existing policies
> while making very sure that premiums are paid.
Just because the government can run a post office, which it has had a long
time to get right, doesn't mean that they ought to run health care. Do we
really want doctors "going postal"? I know that the healthcare system has
loopholes, and those loopholes would still be there. And I have also been
screwed by insurance companies and been without insurance, but I'm not sure
that public health care would be the answer.
> >
> > It seems to me that one of the big problems is lawsuits and the
uninsured.
> > And we do end up paying for that in higher insurance premiums. But
compared
> > to what other countries have to pay in taxes for their health care,
which
> > isn't as good as the care here if you have insurance, it's a barging.
>
>
> It's a barging all right. Ever tried to file a lawsuit aagainst a
> doctor who's misdiagnosed you? I have and good luck. And for those
> pesky uninsured if we'd just let them die off things would be ever so
> much simpler. And while we're at it let's put the elderly to sleep,
> and mental defectives, and homosexuals, and why not Jews and gypsies
> too while we're at it? Oh yeah, I guess that was tried by someone or
> another during the mid-20th century some place in Europe.
You think filing a lawsuit against the government will be easier? As far as
the uninsured, I don't know if you are trying to say that that is my point
of view or not. If you think for a momoment that I feel that way towards
uninsured, elderly, mental defective etc, you are as wrong as you could be.
> >
> > AND, once you nationalize health care, you really give the government
the
> > ability to tell you what to do. If everyone has to pay for your health
> > care, smoking WILL be banned because no one wants to have to pay for
your
> > health problems from smoking. That argument will permeate into many
> > different aspects of your life. It's already used to a big extent by
the
> > anti's, as well as those passing seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc.
>
> Like government isn't doing that already at the urging of private
> insurance companies?
They probably are. But influence is a lot less then ultimate control.
> >
> > Bottom line is that many people that don't have health care that is
either
> > provided by the job or the government are unwilling to obtain it on
their
> > own. We would rather the money go for phones, a new car, a new house,
cell
> > phones, cable, internet access, etc.
>
> You forgot a few things that that $500 or $600 a month ends up going
> to if you are working poor without insurance. Luxury items like food
> and clothing and shelter.
Yes the $500 or $600 goes to important things for some of the people. But
if you have national health care, you think that they won't be taxed? Also,
I have seen where people who were employed, but had no health care, choose
instead to have cable, a new, not used, car, etc. Those are indeed luxury
items. I have also seen the same people, without insurance, continue to go
to the emergancy room in order to get pain medication.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I may, and probably am, wrong about many of the above
points.
> > This is simply my point of view. Flame away, but please be gentle. :)
>
> I'm trying, heaven knows I'm trying, but I'm a tad biased. After
> being steadily employed for the last 30 years I was laid off and found
> a new job last year. Unfortunately I was foolish enough to have my
> heart attack one month before my new insurance took effect. So now
> once I'm back at work I have a choice between paying this off for the
> rest of my working life or declaring bankruptcy. The proverbial
> choice between cancer and polio.
I understand, and I am very sorry tat you ever had to make those choices. I
am also sure that I did a terrible job explaining myself on this issue. And
I think that looking at the system and maybe having a form of healthcare
with unemployment might not be a bad idea. I'm not saying that it is a good
system, but that it would be worse if the government had their hands on it.
It would become a political tool. used to advance political agendas.
When I was younger, my wife had our first kid. We were not married, and she
didn't have insurance. I ended up paying for the doctor's bill. That may
not sound like much, but at 17, it is a hell of a lesson. During my child's
first 4 years, we had no insurance. We had to rely on ACCESS for medical
care of the baby. She ended up having a lazy eye. We had to pay to have
that corrected. After that I figured it was cheaper to buy insurance.
During all this, I was going to college and not working. My wife, God bless
her, had moved out of her parents house, and supported her and my daughter
on a minimum wage job. Believe me, she had nothing. Rent, electricity, and
groceries was it. No car, no phone, nothing else. So I guess it upsets me
when I see people that won't get insurance for their kids, but they can
support a nice little drug habit and afford things that I was never able to
because we decided not to have "free" health care at the expense of everyone
else.
I understand that there is a problem, but I also think, as I have said
before, that it is not the government's mandate to provide us with
healthcare.
Todd Benson
Scoop, I don't agree 100% with this. I believe that it is somewhat true, I
have also seen it not be true. I agree that it should be looked at, but I
don't think that it is the Federal Government's job to provide healthcare.
I also think that it takes the decision making process away from the
insured.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
> Last time I checked the Post Office was gov't owned, is turning a
> profit, and I just watched them get a $.37 letter to me from 1/2 way
> across the country in one, count 'em one, business day. You're
It is NOT turning a profit. At least when you consider the overall
investment from the inception of the PO through today, and compare
the "profit" against that investment. It is financially a loser.
It certainly has improved lately, but this is largely due to
market forces brought to bear by UPS and FedEx especially. The
USPS _had_ to upgrade service or die of neglect.
<SNIP>
>
> I'm trying, heaven knows I'm trying, but I'm a tad biased. After
> being steadily employed for the last 30 years I was laid off and found
> a new job last year. Unfortunately I was foolish enough to have my
> heart attack one month before my new insurance took effect. So now
> once I'm back at work I have a choice between paying this off for the
> rest of my working life or declaring bankruptcy. The proverbial
> choice between cancer and polio.
Your personal situation is unfortunate. But lots of us have all manner
of misfortunes large and small. No person's misfortune creates a license
to raid the wallet of another person. I have had many misfortunes in my
own life, both medical and otherwise, and I never once thought it was
everyone else's job to pick up the tab for them. It is not my intention
to be unkind here, but I simply fail to see how any one of our
personal problems somehow gives us license to make our fellow
citizens take care of us. To me, that's theft, not good government.
"Nationalized" health insurance is a code word for the government
sticking a gun in the ear of its citizens and _making_ them pay for a
system whether they want it or not. If you feel really strongly about
changing this, why not start a movement to create a private and
_voluntary_ national healthcare system. If there really are that many
people who need this, they should be able to effectively create a
healthcare co-op and get preferential pricing on service. Buyer's clubs
have existed to do this sort of thing for many years. Arguably, this is
more-or-less what Walmart, Home Depot, and Sam's Club do: They buy in
volume on behalf of their members thereby creating low prices. There's
no reason that the "millions of uninsured Americans" could not
effectively create their own insurance program. In fact, it ought to
be doable as a for-profit institution.
In the immortal words of Reagan: "Government does not fix problems, it
subsidizes them." Much of my family live in Canada, and a number of them
are in the Candian healthcare system. It is not all that great. If
you're dying, you'll get good care. But prophylactic care is hit or
miss. Really painful conditions that are not life threatening like gall
stones can wait a very long time for treatment. Innovation in drugs and
new medical techniques is stifled (as compared to market driven
medicine), and increasingly, the best and brightest go elsewhere.
Here in Illinois we are seeing the direct effects of the government
and the carnivorous trial lawyers' approach to medicine. Doctors
are leaving our state because they cannot afford to practice medicine.
One doctor I saw interviewed said his salary was $175K and his
malpractice insurance premiums were $150K - he was "profiting" $25K
per year to practice medicine here. He left and I don't blame him.
Oh, and BTW, We The Sheeple are primarily responsible for a good
part of this. Our constant whining about what our "rights" are for
good care have led us to really stupid judgements when we sit on
juries and award damages. Someone smokes cigarettes for 50 years,
gets heart disease or emphysema and if the doctor doesn't perform
magic to save their lives, we award insane judgements to the plaintiffs.
It would be nice if everone on the planet could get the best leading
edge medicine for "free" (which it never is), but that simply is not
realistic. Reality demonstrates that wealthier people have access to
better and more service. Collectivizing the medical profession will not
fix this "problem". "Socializing" anything does not really equalize access
to that thing. It merely creates a new class of corruption and violently
redefines who the "haves" and "have nots" are. A market driven medical
community will not have an absolutely equal distribution of service, but
it will foster innovation and improvement that in the long run benefits
everyone. Ask yourself, why do the rich and famous (who presumably can
go anywhere they want for medical attention) most often choose the US
when they need advanced medicine? Because pound for pound, there's more
advanced medicine to be found here than anywhere else. Why? Because
a doctor or researcher can make lots of money doing medicine here. If we
kill that financial incentive by further collectivizing medicine in the US,
we'll decrease the quality of medicine, stifle innovation, and generally
muck up what works pretty well already for the overwhelming majority of
the population.
Again, it is not my intention to be cruel. I too have been out of work for
a very long time and I understand the frustration. But collectivist
approaches to medicine (and anything else) are cures far worse than the
disease...
P.S. Where on earth is it written that "The Government" will doing things
better than we can for ourselves. I can think of almost no example
where this is true. Given the government's sterling track record on
almost everything (The War On Poverty, The War On Drugs, The War On Terror,
The War On Illiteracy...) I shudder to think what a government-run
"War On Disease" would look like...
Scoop
> If you think public health care is such a panacea, you must
> have never visited a Veterans Administration hospital. They
> are scandalously bad news, but offer a good picture of what
> universal health care will look like.
Tim,
Not to put to fine a point on it, but my mother spent her last few years
in the Phoenix VA hospital. The staff was wonderful, and treated my mother
with love and decent care. I visited her as often as possible, and other
family members filled in so that she was seen daily. So, yes, I have been
in a VA hospital. They aren't perfect, but they beat the hell out of
nothing.
> Sorry, but Universal Health Care is Communism. It is *not* a
> future to look forward to.
Or, if one believes, Christianity. But what the hell, Christ never said
that we should take care of the sick, did he? What? Oh, sorry, he did.
Scoop
thinking, the way things are going here in the US, communism isn't
necessarily a bad thing.
Briarroot
>
> "Briarroot" <woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote in message
> news:40D1FB84...@iwonantispam.com...
> > If you think public health care is such a panacea, you must
> > have never visited a Veterans Administration hospital. They
> > are scandalously bad news, but offer a good picture of what
> > universal health care will look like.
>
> Tim,
> Not to put to fine a point on it, but my mother spent her last few years
> in the Phoenix VA hospital. The staff was wonderful, and treated my mother
> with love and decent care. I visited her as often as possible, and other
> family members filled in so that she was seen daily. So, yes, I have been
> in a VA hospital. They aren't perfect, but they beat the hell out of
> nothing.
The Phoenix VA hospital must be an exceptional.
The two VA hospitals that I'm familiar with have
been horror stories. Anyway, I'm glad your mother
was well cared for. What she a veteran?
> > Sorry, but Universal Health Care is Communism. It is *not* a
> > future to look forward to.
>
> Or, if one believes, Christianity. But what the hell, Christ never said
> that we should take care of the sick, did he? What? Oh, sorry, he did.
Whoa! Don't hand me *your* religion as if it were fact.
I'm not buying it. What would your god say about you
forcing others to do what you cannot persuade them to
do? Isn't that what he would call a sin?
> Scoop
> thinking, the way things are going here in the US, communism isn't
> necessarily a bad thing.
<groan> You've *got* to be kidding. :-(
Gazing back over the course of US history, I can see several
periods in which economic and political conditions were *much*
worse than anything we're experiencing now. The toughest test
we have to face today is Islamic terrorism. I don't know how
we will fare against it in the long run, but I have confidence
that the chaotic, overly redundant, and insanely complex system
by which we govern ourselves will be able to overcome even that
trial. My greatest fear is that we will lose the impetus that
drove our ancestors to create the institutions of government
under which liberty and justice have been fostered for more than
2 centuries. And the gravest danger that I can see comes from
weak willed politicians who are willing to promise anything to
get themselves elected. Pie-in-the-sky notions that health care
is a right not a reward only weaken the moral resolve that the
people need to maintain their liberties. We need leaders and
teachers, not cheap carny hucksters who pretend to give us what
we already own, on a platter that we have to pay for ourselves.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
Regards,
Tim Parker ... VA#1 in a Stanwell billiard
Briarroot
>
> In article <40D11F54...@iwonantispam.com>,
> woo...@iwonantispam.com says...
> >
> > I think we were *lucky* we escaped his busy-body wife's
> > Universal Health Care initiative. I'm glad he was in the
> > habit of ignoring her. :-/
>
> I am not so sure we have escaped it, though. Most likely, just put it
> off for a while...
Yeah. I just saw the Kerry commercial where he flat
out states that "Health Care is a right." Bleh! :-(
I know who I'm *not* going to vote for this November.
Regards,
Tim Parker ... VA#1 in a Stanwell billiard
Tim Daneliuk
Uh, he most certainly did not say that we needed to FORCE other people
to do it with an "or else" from the government. As I recall, he
indicated that it was the PERSONAL responsibility of a Believer.
>
> Scoop
> thinking, the way things are going here in the US, communism isn't
> necessarily a bad thing.
Scoop, Dude, Bro, lemme tell you just how wrong you are on this one.
My family comes from a part of the world where Communism was widely
practiced. My minister father spent a carreer smuggling religious
literature and humanitarian aid into those countries. Communism was
and is a despicable, vile, corrosive, and flatly evil form of
governance that killed 10s and perhaps 100s of millions of people.
Our current experiment in Democracy has its ups and down, but it has
been the instrument of _Freedom_ for 100s of millions. Even in this
contentions war FAR more people have been made free than have been
hurt. Your inability to make this distinction is troublesome to me ...
Scoop
> Scoop wrote:
> >
> > "Briarroot" <woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote in message
> > news:40D1FB84...@iwonantispam.com...
> > > If you think public health care is such a panacea, you must
> > > have never visited a Veterans Administration hospital. They
> > > are scandalously bad news, but offer a good picture of what
> > > universal health care will look like.
> >
> > Tim,
> > Not to put to fine a point on it, but my mother spent her last few
years
> > in the Phoenix VA hospital. The staff was wonderful, and treated my
mother
> > with love and decent care. I visited her as often as possible, and
other
> > family members filled in so that she was seen daily. So, yes, I have
been
> > in a VA hospital. They aren't perfect, but they beat the hell out of
> > nothing.
>
> The Phoenix VA hospital must be an exceptional.
> The two VA hospitals that I'm familiar with have
> been horror stories. Anyway, I'm glad your mother
> was well cared for. What she a veteran?
Yes, she was a vet. She served in WWII as an Army nurse, assigned to the
MASH unit, if you will, that accompanied the 101st, she landed with the
hospital very shortly after D-Day, and was with the unit throughout the rest
of the war.
>
>
> > > Sorry, but Universal Health Care is Communism. It is *not* a
> > > future to look forward to.
> >
> > Or, if one believes, Christianity. But what the hell, Christ never said
> > that we should take care of the sick, did he? What? Oh, sorry, he did.
>
> Whoa! Don't hand me *your* religion as if it were fact.
> I'm not buying it. What would your god say about you
> forcing others to do what you cannot persuade them to
> do? Isn't that what he would call a sin?
Actually, I'm a Taoist, which is to say that I can accept all sorts of
religions as getting parts of it right. What I said, if you reread, is that
Christ said that we should take care of the sick. It isn't until you get to
St. Paul that things get ugly. Oh, and according to some Christians,
forcing you to accept their beliefs is *exactly* what God would want. After
all, the Inquisition, the heresy trials in England, the Crusades, all of
these and more were designed to force their view of God on others.
>
>
> > Scoop
> > thinking, the way things are going here in the US, communism isn't
> > necessarily a bad thing.
>
> <groan> You've *got* to be kidding. :-(
>
> Gazing back over the course of US history, I can see several
> periods in which economic and political conditions were *much*
> worse than anything we're experiencing now. The toughest test
> we have to face today is Islamic terrorism. I don't know how
> we will fare against it in the long run, but I have confidence
> that the chaotic, overly redundant, and insanely complex system
> by which we govern ourselves will be able to overcome even that
> trial. My greatest fear is that we will lose the impetus that
> drove our ancestors to create the institutions of government
> under which liberty and justice have been fostered for more than
> 2 centuries. And the gravest danger that I can see comes from
> weak willed politicians who are willing to promise anything to
> get themselves elected. Pie-in-the-sky notions that health care
> is a right not a reward only weaken the moral resolve that the
> people need to maintain their liberties. We need leaders and
> teachers, not cheap carny hucksters who pretend to give us what
> we already own, on a platter that we have to pay for ourselves.
>
> There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
I said communism, not totalitarianism. Remember, I'm an anarcho-socialist,
or rather, an anarcho-communist.
Scoop
Scoop
Oh, please, Tim, are you honestly going to vote for someone who violates
even more of your beliefs than Kerry? Bush is for increased government
surveillance of citizens, increased spending without the income to cover it,
decreased support for veterans, the list goes on...
Frankly, I'd opt for someone other than those two, if there was a chance in
hell that it would work.
Scoop
Robert Crim
wrote:
>thinking, the way things are going here in the US, communism isn't
>necessarily a bad thing.
Are you thinking of "Soviet Union/Red China/Cuba" style communism or
"let's live in the woods and paint our little pink bodies" style
communism?
R...............obert
Bob Rhode a.k.a. TBomb
You bring up some good points. I'd just like to say a couple things
before I put my soapbox away.
First any society that won't allow those who can't pay for their
healthcare to die in the streets already has a form of national health
care. After that it's just a question of how efficient a system
taxpayers want to pay for.
Secondly, in regards to cost effectiveness of one national program I
always understood that one of the main things that help make medicine
affordable was the economies of scale that insurance companies take
advantage of. Wouldn't one program be more efficient than the 1400 or
so we now have? Even if it were forced to actually provide coverage
instead of dreaming up more new exclusions every time you turn around.
Lastly, and then I'm going to shut up, if you ran an insurance company
how much would you spend to defeat any proposal to make your business
obsolete? That's right, just as much as it takes. Looking at the way
so many Americans get upset at the very thought of any such program it
appears to me that so far the companies have been investing their
money wisely.
Bob - packing up his soapbox and heading back into his corner
Joseph M. LaVigne
@yahoo.com says...
> Tim,
> You bring up some good points. I'd just like to say a couple things
> before I put my soapbox away.
>
> First any society that won't allow those who can't pay for their
> healthcare to die in the streets already has a form of national health
> care. After that it's just a question of how efficient a system
> taxpayers want to pay for.
What is your definition of efficiency? Expediency of necessary care, or
cost effectiveness? You can't have both. What about advancement in
medical science? Is that a factor?
>
> Secondly, in regards to cost effectiveness of one national program I
> always understood that one of the main things that help make medicine
> affordable was the economies of scale that insurance companies take
> advantage of. Wouldn't one program be more efficient than the 1400 or
> so we now have? Even if it were forced to actually provide coverage
> instead of dreaming up more new exclusions every time you turn around.
If we had just one car company, wouldn't that be more effective than the
multitudes of manufacturers out there now? The single maker of vehicles
would certainly be looking to give the best bang for the buck, right?
Monopolies are never good. Monopolies that are protected by law are
worse. The health insurance companies in my part of the country compete
with each other. Lowering costs is not an option for them, so they
constantly strive to offer better and more services. Used to be just
standard medical care, but now includes full eyeglass coverage,
chiropractic, prescription drugs, and some are now offering dental.
The way to fix the costs problem is to prevent outrageous medical
malpractice payouts, but the lawyers of the country will never let that
happen, and the people seem to like the idea of being able to get
millions because a human being made a mistake.
>
> Lastly, and then I'm going to shut up, if you ran an insurance company
> how much would you spend to defeat any proposal to make your business
> obsolete? That's right, just as much as it takes. Looking at the way
> so many Americans get upset at the very thought of any such program it
> appears to me that so far the companies have been investing their
> money wisely.
If you ran an ice cream store, how much would you sepnd to defeat any
proposal that would make your business obsolete?
Any person running a business has that responsibility to both his
employees and his shareholders. The fact still remains the same,
nationalizing health insurance will make it worse, not better.
Scoop
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:ntiaq1-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
> Scoop, Dude, Bro, lemme tell you just how wrong you are on this one.
> My family comes from a part of the world where Communism was widely
> practiced. My minister father spent a carreer smuggling religious
> literature and humanitarian aid into those countries. Communism was
> and is a despicable, vile, corrosive, and flatly evil form of
> governance that killed 10s and perhaps 100s of millions of people.
> Our current experiment in Democracy has its ups and down, but it has
> been the instrument of _Freedom_ for 100s of millions. Even in this
> contentions war FAR more people have been made free than have been
> hurt. Your inability to make this distinction is troublesome to me ...
Tim,
With all due respect to you and your family, and believe me, that's a
fair amount, what they were dealing with was not communism, but rather a
totalitarian statist-capitalistic society. Stalin and his ilk were not
communists, in fact there have been very few true communistic societies, and
none that I know if in the modern world, outside of some tribal groups.
See, that's the problem. People think that, by naming themselves
something, they are that thing. We have people who claim to be Christian,
name themselves that, and don't follow any of the precepts of Christ. We
have people who claim to be conservatives who are spending money like there
is no tomorrow to worry about. We have people who call themselves liberal
who support corporate welfare. It happens all over the place.
Self-defining labels are rarely accurate, and often deliberately so.
Even myself, when I define myself as an anarcho-communist, or
anarcho-socialist. Those are words, and although I tend towards most of
those labels, on individual issues I may support something entirely away
from that spectrum.
As to the Eastern Bloc, it is debatable whether any of the leaders ever
really held communism as an ideal. Lenin may have, possibly Trotsky, beyond
that it's unlikely.
We could get into a whole discussion of the underlying causes for the
failure of communism to take shape in the USSR, Marx' failure to anticipate
certain relevant issues in his theories, etc., and we'd probably find some
very similar grounds for agreement. And we could talk about most people in
this, and other countries, who call themselves communists, yet have no
concept of the terms, other than it being a "non-capitalistic" system, and
we'd probably agree that most of them are only reactionary thinkers. The
problem lies with the lack of thought that most people give to their
political lives.
Scoop
Scoop
"Robert Crim" <frit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hss5d0p4jbcf0q2jc...@4ax.com...
A bit different than both, Robert.
First, the whole idea of communism was merely a ruse in the modern
"communist" countries. As I mention in another post, they practice
something that is, in reality, a totalitarian statist-capitalist form of
government, with no resemblence to communism at all, so we can pretty much
dismiss them.
No, I speak of the idea of collectivism, combined with limited anarchism.
The idea is that the government's main goal is the protection and promotion
of its citizens' welfare, in face of the accumulative power of corporations,
but not in protecting themselves from themselves. Or, to clarify, as with
Marx, I agree that the workers should hold, as a collective group, the means
of production. I also believe that the government should stay out of their
individual lives. That a person should be free to speak his mind, drink her
drink, and ingest whatever they damned well please. I also believe that
they should be free to marry who they please, worship how they please, and
live their lives without fear of repressions. That's the anarchist part of
the equation.
Well, I could go on a bit more, about how the government should be there
to enforce laws that are based on protecting people, such as murder and
such, how collectivism does not equate to statism, etc. But I'm probably
boring too many people right now.
Scoop
Robert Crim
wrote:
Let's call it "Scoopism" since I can't think of any working examples,
past or present of such a system.
R.
Scoop
> Let's call it "Scoopism" since I can't think of any working examples,
> past or present of such a system.
LMAO! I think I mention, somewhere else, that I can't think of any such
society in modern history, outside of a few tribal ones. Certainly the
theory has been propounded before, and by better minds than mine.
Scoop
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim,
> You bring up some good points. I'd just like to say a couple things
> before I put my soapbox away.
>
> First any society that won't allow those who can't pay for their
> healthcare to die in the streets already has a form of national health
> care. After that it's just a question of how efficient a system
> taxpayers want to pay for.
Not really. The system we have in place today does have some
minimal level of "universal" coverage, but it is not necessarily
_at the taxpayers expense_. Coverage for indigents gets absorbed
lots of different ways, but mostly not at the point of the taxman's
gun. I have no problem with universal coverage so long as it is
voluntary and privately funded.
>
> Secondly, in regards to cost effectiveness of one national program I
> always understood that one of the main things that help make medicine
> affordable was the economies of scale that insurance companies take
> advantage of. Wouldn't one program be more efficient than the 1400 or
> so we now have? Even if it were forced to actually provide coverage
> instead of dreaming up more new exclusions every time you turn around.
Probably not. Every single example we have of government action is
inefficent and generally of poor quality with the notable exception
of the military (which has to fight for its life so efficiency is
pretty important - at least in combat). So there is no historical
reason to believe it would work well. Also, it is pretty clear
that efficiency is driven by competition not by government-enforced
monopoly. Consider the case of the public utilities. They were big
bloated and inefficient until they got deregulated. Now they run much
lighter and consumers have some level of choice.
The real inefficiency in today's healthcare is a legal system that
ties the hands of the providers and insurers via statutory intrusion
and punishes them by means of the trial courts. We The Sheeple need
to demand that government get _out_ of the healthcare business and
treat it like any other - have competition and reasonable product
liability laws.
>
> Lastly, and then I'm going to shut up, if you ran an insurance company
> how much would you spend to defeat any proposal to make your business
> obsolete? That's right, just as much as it takes. Looking at the way
> so many Americans get upset at the very thought of any such program it
> appears to me that so far the companies have been investing their
> money wisely.
Well sure. But if that minimum level of service that the insurer
is providing is not "good" enough, then why are competing insurers
not springing into action? Insurance is not a right any more than
healthcare is a right. These are things we buy. If a substantial
portion of the insurance consuming public is unhappy with what
is available, it seems to me this is an opportunity for a new
player.
This is _exactly_ what happened in the airline business when
it deregulated (I worked for a major airline for almost 10 years).
Everyone thought that there would be no new players because the capital
costs to start a new airline were so high and the profit margins
so thin that no one would bother. Wrong! Today the majors are
struggling to survive while new entrants like Jet Blue and Southwest
eat everyone's lunch. So much so that the bloated, subsidized, and
generally rotten consumer rail system has to constantly be proped
up to even exist. All of this means we can fly cheaper than ever
with more choices than ever of carriers. Insurance is no different.
The _real_ problem in the insurance industry is that there is
such a regulatory and legal tangle that new players really don't
want to get into it. Deregulate the industry to reasonable levels
and watch new players enter...
>
> Bob - packing up his soapbox and heading back into his corner
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
,
> but not in protecting themselves from themselves. Or, to clarify, as with
> Marx, I agree that the workers should hold, as a collective group, the means
> of production. I also believe that the government should stay out of their
And how, pray tell, will they "hold the means of production" without at
some point resorting to force and violence. THAT is why all collectivist
schemes ultimately fail. They require force to be maintained. Laisse
Faire capitalism does not require force .... but then again, we abandoned
that a long time ago too.
Scoop
> Scoop wrote:
> <SNIP>
> ,
> > but not in protecting themselves from themselves. Or, to clarify, as
with
> > Marx, I agree that the workers should hold, as a collective group, the
means
> > of production. I also believe that the government should stay out of
their
>
> And how, pray tell, will they "hold the means of production" without at
> some point resorting to force and violence. THAT is why all collectivist
> schemes ultimately fail. They require force to be maintained. Laisse
> Faire capitalism does not require force .... but then again, we abandoned
> that a long time ago too.
Just a quick response - if the society is already set to collectivism, then
no coercion is necessary. Otherwise, yes, some would happen in order to
change over.As to free rein capitalism, take a look at the conditions for
the average workers in the late 19th and early 20th century, and you'll see
why we had the rise of communism and trade unionism.
Scoop
Briarroot
>
> Oh, please, Tim, are you honestly going to vote for someone who violates
> even more of your beliefs than Kerry? Bush is for increased government
> surveillance of citizens, increased spending without the income to cover it,
> decreased support for veterans, the list goes on...
If I end up voting for Bush, it will be the first time
I have ever voted for a Republican presidential candidate.
At the moment, I only know I will *never* vote for Kerry.
I don't think you actually know what Bush is "for" but that's
an argument in which I don't presently want to get involved.
> Frankly, I'd opt for someone other than those two, if there was a chance in
> hell that it would work.
Yeah, me too. Unfortunately, it looks like Nader will be the
only other name on the ballot. :-(
Regards,
Tim Parker ... VA#1 in a no-name bulldog
Todd Benson
>
> Frankly, I'd opt for someone other than those two, if there was a chance
in
> hell that it would work.
>
confidence" and send them back for a viable canidate. Maybe then we
wouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Briarroot
>
> You bring up some good points. I'd just like to say a couple things
> before I put my soapbox away.
>
> First any society that won't allow those who can't pay for their
> healthcare to die in the streets already has a form of national health
> care. After that it's just a question of how efficient a system
> taxpayers want to pay for.
That is not the only alternative to Universal Health Care.
Did people die in the streets when you were growing up?
Did people die in the streets when your parents were growing
up? Let's not get carried away with inflammatory rhetoric,
shall we?
> Secondly, in regards to cost effectiveness of one national program I
> always understood that one of the main things that help make medicine
> affordable was the economies of scale that insurance companies take
> advantage of. Wouldn't one program be more efficient than the 1400 or
> so we now have? Even if it were forced to actually provide coverage
> instead of dreaming up more new exclusions every time you turn around.
Negative! Businesses that enjoy monopolies always cost us more
than businesses who are forced to compete with each other. What
is missing from the health care business is *real* competition.
Insurance companies use government regulation as a crutch to avoid
a competitive market. When a government employee in some faceless
bureaucracy rubber stamps your insurance bill, you can bet that it
will be for an amount that is much more than you would have been
willing to pay had you been in a position to bargain with your
medical provider for their services *before* such services were
rendered. Insurance companies specialize in keeping the real
costs of medical care hidden from you, who must pay the bills,
and one of the principal way is via government agencies.
I believe if governments got out of the health care business,
insurance rates would plummet. If public disclosure of medical
costs (which can only come about via bona fide competition)
were to happen, insurance companies would be forced to cut rates.
Neither will ever come to pass as long as most people think that
government paid health care is a panacea. There really isn't any
such thing as a free lunch!
> Lastly, and then I'm going to shut up, if you ran an insurance company
> how much would you spend to defeat any proposal to make your business
> obsolete? That's right, just as much as it takes. Looking at the way
> so many Americans get upset at the very thought of any such program it
> appears to me that so far the companies have been investing their
> money wisely.
If I ran an insurance company I would own a slew of politicians.
Q.E.D. government health care != good health care
Todd Benson
Todd Benson
So basically you are looking at a society where the government stay's out of
daily life, but the economic principle is "all for one, one for all?:
For the most part, what you described above was very much how this country
was at one time. The people had all the power, economic and political. In
fact, what you describe above, if I'm not mistaken, is a very Jeffersonian
view of government and society. The only difference was that it wasn't
collectivism. You would be as successful as you could, and it wasn't
reliant on anyone else.
--
TGB
http://members.cox.net/tbenson37/
Bob Rhode a.k.a. TBomb
1. Ever try to bring a lawsuit against a medical professional?
There're reasons most lawyers (at least in my region) won't touch a
malpractice suit with a ten foot pole.
2. The people that put out the medical profession's PR (for want of
the more accurate term) are very very good.
Bob
Scoop
Why I oughta...
Scoop
Scoop
Yep, call it modified Jeffersonianism, if you wish. As with all theories, a
person creates an hypothesis, tests it with by experiments, and then uses
the results to create a theory that is then retested by repeating the above.
I'm merely suggesting a new hypothesis, based on the experiment that we've
had going for so long now.
Scoop
Todd Benson
--
TGB
http://members.cox.net/tbenson37/
"Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote in message
news:LKMAc.65436$eu.25627@attbi_s02...
Todd Benson
person. You wish that life was fair, to everyone, and you can't see why it
won't work, because you can't see people being dishonest enough, lazy
enough, selfish enough, and dumb enough to not keep up their end of the
bargin. And I know that you know that that's just not the way of human
nature.
It seems that what we started with, we are getting further and further from
it. The good is disappearing and the bad is getting worse.
--
TGB
http://members.cox.net/tbenson37/
"Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote in message
news:6QMAc.75446$Sw.42787@attbi_s51...
Scoop
> I think that it's a nice theory, and it really says something about you as
a
> person. You wish that life was fair, to everyone, and you can't see why
it
> won't work, because you can't see people being dishonest enough, lazy
> enough, selfish enough, and dumb enough to not keep up their end of the
> bargin. And I know that you know that that's just not the way of human
> nature.
>
> It seems that what we started with, we are getting further and further
from
> it. The good is disappearing and the bad is getting worse.
Thanks, yes, I do tend towards that system of wish. That said, I'm also
quite aware that my theory is not workable without a major shift in the way
most of us think. Ah well. But at least, by being willing to stand for my
beliefs, I might at least provide what balance I can.
Scoop
Todd Benson
Balance is good, as is standing by your beliefs. I could only hope that
mankind could behave that way. But it isn't so. And as long as it isn't
so, God help us if your theories are ever put into play. With what we have
become, the Garden of Eden is no longer possible, if it ever was.
Briarroot
>
> I think that it's a nice theory, and it really says something about you as a
> person. You wish that life was fair, to everyone, and you can't see why it
> won't work, because you can't see people being dishonest enough, lazy
> enough, selfish enough, and dumb enough to not keep up their end of the
> bargin. And I know that you know that that's just not the way of human
> nature.
This is why it is important to study history. If there's
one thing one soon learns from history, it's that human
beings, taken as a group, are endlessly dishonest, lazy,
selfish and dumb. The few who are honest, hard working,
generous and smart, stand out plainly from the crowd.
Now if only we could get those few to run for public office!
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Dunbar in a Parker blast chimney
Todd Benson
I may be in the minority, but I do believe that honest, hard working,
generous and smart people do run for office. Some don't get elected, some
change after they are elected and sometimes, from our vantage point, it is
not always obvious that they are doing what they feel is right. I would
imagine that there are a lot of factors when you get in office that keep you
from being able to do what you want. I see it all the time in an office
setting. You want to do one thing, but there are so many factors that keep
you from doing it.
Then again, there are a lot of assholes in office too.
--
TGB
http://members.cox.net/tbenson37/
Tim Daneliuk
> "Briarroot" <woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote in message
> news:40D42A21...@iwonantispam.com...
>
>>Todd Benson wrote:
<SNIP>
>>This is why it is important to study history. If there's
>>one thing one soon learns from history, it's that human
>>beings, taken as a group, are endlessly dishonest, lazy,
>>selfish and dumb. The few who are honest, hard working,
>>generous and smart, stand out plainly from the crowd.
>>Now if only we could get those few to run for public office!
>
>
>
> I may be in the minority, but I do believe that honest, hard working,
> generous and smart people do run for office. Some don't get elected, some
> change after they are elected and sometimes, from our vantage point, it is
> not always obvious that they are doing what they feel is right. I would
> imagine that there are a lot of factors when you get in office that keep you
> from being able to do what you want. I see it all the time in an office
> setting. You want to do one thing, but there are so many factors that keep
> you from doing it.
>
> Then again, there are a lot of assholes in office too.
>
The problem is not predominantly the politicians and never has been. We
all get the government we deserve. We send these people to their offices
and beg them for "free" stuff. They are only too happy to oblige to
maintain their office and power. Worse than that, we now have a variety
of do-gooding crusaders who ask for "free" stuff on behalf of other
people and groups. The whole business is less reputable than a crack
whore in a back alley plying her trade. There is nothing "free" about
any of it and We The Sheeple know better. We've just become so
self-involved and narcissistic that we've convinced ourselves that a
good life, on our terms, is a "right" no matter that it involves raiding
the lives and fortunes our neighbors. The enemy is not the elected
official, the form of government, or our legal system. The enemy is _us_
....
Joseph M. LaVigne
> 1. Ever try to bring a lawsuit against a medical professional?
> There're reasons most lawyers (at least in my region) won't touch a
> malpractice suit with a ten foot pole.
Not sure what you mean by this. There is an entirely separate group of
lawyers that pretty much do nothing but Med-Mal suits, and make a good
living out of it.
There are very few doctors that don't get sued at some point.
> 2. The people that put out the medical profession's PR (for want of
> the more accurate term) are very very good.
Riiiight. Most doctors are earning a pittance these days, after paying
for the required Malpractice insurance. What you pay is not what they
get...
Buddy Springman
"Joseph M. LaVigne"
> Riiiight. Most doctors are earning a pittance these days, after
paying
> for the required Malpractice insurance. What you pay is not what they
> get...
The median doctor's earning in my county is about $175K a year. Sounds
like a lot - but think about the cost / earnings-lost associated with
staying in school, etc. 'til they're almost thirty. The net is this low
because of malpractice insurance costs. $50K/yr? Maybe, for a gp, but
no way for a GYN or neuro - not even close.
Buddy