On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
>    At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
> commerce which keeps the cash flowing.

	In which direction?

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 15:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It seems to me (being in favor of it, and no, I haven't read it either)
> that there are those who think that it should reformed as it is - nearly
> everybody agrees that what we have is broken, it's just a question of how
> best to fix it.

	Funny - I haven't heard any suggestions of alternatives from those who 
keep opposing it. Are you sure they agree it is broken?

> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't take
> care of individuals who get sick because they don't have insurance, we
> risk infecting everyone else.

	Not really. I'm betting most serious problems where people get hurt by 
private health care/insurance are not contagious.
	
	(And my sig was totally randomly picked. I swear!)

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 16:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:45:54 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> most of them
>
> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but
> socialism.

	How many of Americans who oppose it know the difference?

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that). 
They're opposed to *universal* health care.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a848d62$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:55:58 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Then there are those who think capitalism is the answer to
>>> *everything*. "Let the market decide"
>> 
>> We're currently seeing where this leads to... but I'm sure there are
>> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis...
>> >_<
>
> LOL!
>
> Capitalism and "self-regulation".  Isn't the latter what got us into this 
> mess in the first place (at least in part)?

What you mean (or what is meant) by self-regulation? Some effect of
free trade?

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a849ed4$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
>>    At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
>> commerce which keeps the cash flowing.
>
> 	In which direction?

Good question. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:17:03 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 16:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:45:54 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> most of them
>>
>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but
>> socialism.
> 
> 	How many of Americans who oppose it know the difference?

Probably not many - it's probably in the bucket of "not capitalism" 
bucket and so, by definition, "bad".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:02:08 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

>> Capitalism and "self-regulation".  Isn't the latter what got us into
>> this mess in the first place (at least in part)?
> 
> What you mean (or what is meant) by self-regulation? Some effect of free
> trade?

Self-regulation means that the industry regulates itself, or provides 
"guidance" to the regulating body by making up the rules for themselves.

So, in the case of the banking industry, there are allegations (I don't 
know whether they're true or not, but I have my suspicions) that many of 
the banking regulations in place now were written by people in the 
banking industry.  Thus, they set rules that allowed them to get away 
with the shenanigans that got us into our current economic situation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:24:17 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a847bbd$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
>> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't
>> take care of individuals who get sick because they don't have
>> insurance, we risk infecting everyone else.
> 
> I think people on all sides miss the real issues. Health care doesn't
> magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health

Agreed.

> care in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and
> arguably stinks more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their
> timely health care needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of
> each is a major decision, but the quality is all in the implementation,
> economy, management, logistics... etc.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:16:58 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 15:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It seems to me (being in favor of it, and no, I haven't read it either)
>> that there are those who think that it should reformed as it is -
>> nearly everybody agrees that what we have is broken, it's just a
>> question of how best to fix it.
> 
> 	Funny - I haven't heard any suggestions of alternatives from 
those who
> keep opposing it. Are you sure they agree it is broken?

The ones I've talked to agree that it's broken, but they are against "big 
government" and I understand the reasons why, even though I might not 
agree with them.

>> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
>> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't
>> take care of individuals who get sick because they don't have
>> insurance, we risk infecting everyone else.
> 
> 	Not really. I'm betting most serious problems where people get 
hurt by
> private health care/insurance are not contagious.

No, probably not, but the problems of contagious/infectious diseases 
should not be discounted either.  Health affects everyone, directly or 
indirectly.  People on long-term (or permanent) disability, for example, 
affect you and me because they still need medical care.  People without 
insurance currently are paid for by you and me (IIRC you're in the US as 
well) because part of our premiums goes towards covering the uninsured - 
but they tend to only go in when things get REALLY bad and consequently 
REALLY expensive.  I'd rather they were covered for preventative care so 
that my (and your) premiums can come down because they don't wait until 
they have to go to the emergency room to get treated for a sore throat 
(that turns into something serious enough to need a trip to the ER).

> 	(And my sig was totally randomly picked. I swear!)

LOL, it's a good one, though, and highlights one of the major problems 
with the US system:  litigation and malpractice insurance.

Jim

Post a reply to this message