 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 19:26, Shay wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/27/09 17:17, Shay wrote:
>>>> So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not
>>>> forced?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
>>> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.
>>
>> Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But
>> that's a minor point.
>
> Oh my god! Are you f**king kidding me?!
That doesn't actually constitute an argument. It certainly doesn't
address anything I said.
Earlier, you dismissed anecdotes. Frankly, anecdotes, poor as they may
be, are better than your response.
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> So in other words, the DoI states what we set out to do, and then we
> failed short?
Pretty much. Guess that means we should call it quits, scrap it, and
start from scratch. (My ex-landlord was/is in the 'anti-UN' camp with
the idea that since the UN has failed its original intent, the whole
thing needs to be terminated...instead of, say, fixed to correct the
problems. But what's a different can of worms. ...OR IS IT? *dramatic
chord*)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:54:32 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So in other words, the DoI states what we set out to do, and then we
>> failed short?
>
> Pretty much. Guess that means we should call it quits, scrap it, and
> start from scratch. (My ex-landlord was/is in the 'anti-UN' camp with
> the idea that since the UN has failed its original intent, the whole
> thing needs to be terminated...instead of, say, fixed to correct the
> problems. But what's a different can of worms. ...OR IS IT? *dramatic
> chord*)
Is that sarcasm I detect? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:49:34 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 19:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:43:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>> His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
>>
>> I think you missed an "only" in there. IOW, a single-payer system
>> isn't the only option.
>
> No, I meant what I said. He stated that he is not pursuing single
> payer:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-
Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/
>
> "All right? So I'm not promoting a single-payer plan."
>
> (Never mind his lies in what he said throughout...)
So I'm confused, because you wrote back to Shay and said you never denied
that he said his goal was to have single payer. Or are you highlighting
that he's stated both?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 22:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
> So I'm confused, because you wrote back to Shay and said you never denied
> that he said his goal was to have single payer. Or are you highlighting
> that he's stated both?
Yes.
He's a politician, after all. When it's convenient, he said he was for
it. When it's convenient, he dismisses it as a fantasy (not his words,
but pretty much says it's impossible to achieve).
I'm not going to assume one of his statements as truth and the other as
false. Both are suspect.
He has a history of doing this all along. Pre-Senator Obama was a very
different person (in rhetoric) than Senator Obama, and slightly
different as President. He says what he has to to get votes, and has
done a 180 degree turn on quite a few issues.
--
Is Disney World the only people trap operated by a mouse?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.
You're misstating the argument, consistently enough that I have to
assume that either
a) You really don't understand the issue,
b) you understand but don't want anyone else to understand.
To use your lifeboat analogy:
We are currently in a lifeboat built for 6 people. There are 4 people
who can't get in the lifeboat because its full.
The Federal Government wants to build a bigger lifeboat, so we can hold
those 4 people. This will cost everyone involved a small sum.
The private insurance companies, who build lifeboats for a living, don't
want the Government to build a lifeboat. They want to wait for those 4
people to be able to afford another lifeboat on their own, else just let
them drown.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> The entity wanting to take over health care is 12 Trillion in debt,
Thanks, Bush. You did your country good.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> I'm not preaching that Capitalism is a panacea or that our Constitution
> is perfect, but my principal fear is what will (continue to) happen as
> we lose our constitutional protection from the majority.
Wait... are you actually arguing that the Democrats are trying to take
away civil liberties?
Where have you *been* for the last decade? Our civil liberties have
already been shredded, and Obama is trying to give something back to us.
I say, let him. UHC is a much more worthy expense than, say,
someone's pet war half the world away (plus, it has the added bonus of
increasing quality of life, which has a corresponding effect on
productivity, in the end benefiting our economy).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:42:30 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 22:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So I'm confused, because you wrote back to Shay and said you never
>> denied that he said his goal was to have single payer. Or are you
>> highlighting that he's stated both?
>
> Yes.
Now it makes sense. :-)
> He's a politician, after all. When it's convenient, he said he
was for
> it. When it's convenient, he dismisses it as a fantasy (not his words,
> but pretty much says it's impossible to achieve).
>
> I'm not going to assume one of his statements as truth and the
other as
> false. Both are suspect.
>
> He has a history of doing this all along. Pre-Senator Obama was a
very
> different person (in rhetoric) than Senator Obama, and slightly
> different as President. He says what he has to to get votes, and has
> done a 180 degree turn on quite a few issues.
Well, and I think all politicians (even the long-time ones) get a good
idea and then when they see what it'll take, they have an "oh crap"
moment, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 23:00, Chambers wrote:
> To use your lifeboat analogy:
> We are currently in a lifeboat built for 6 people. There are 4 people
> who can't get in the lifeboat because its full.
> The Federal Government wants to build a bigger lifeboat, so we can hold
> those 4 people. This will cost everyone involved a small sum.
> The private insurance companies, who build lifeboats for a living, don't
> want the Government to build a lifeboat. They want to wait for those 4
> people to be able to afford another lifeboat on their own, else just let
> them drown.
Yes, but it's in the interest of the people who build lifeboats to
artificially restrict the size of the lifeboats, and inflate prices.
--
Is Disney World the only people trap operated by a mouse?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 23:00, Chambers wrote:
>> To use your lifeboat analogy:
>> We are currently in a lifeboat built for 6 people. There are 4 people
>> who can't get in the lifeboat because its full.
>> The Federal Government wants to build a bigger lifeboat, so we can hold
>> those 4 people. This will cost everyone involved a small sum.
>> The private insurance companies, who build lifeboats for a living, don't
>> want the Government to build a lifeboat. They want to wait for those 4
>> people to be able to afford another lifeboat on their own, else just let
>> them drown.
>
> Yes, but it's in the interest of the people who build lifeboats to
> artificially restrict the size of the lifeboats, and inflate prices.
>
Personally, I'm more interested in the lives of the four people drowning
than the pockets of the lifeboat builders. Let them compete fairly,
sure, but if we have a chance to build a bigger boat, we should go for it.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
>>>> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.
>>>
>>> Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But
>>> that's a minor point.
>>
>> Oh my god! Are you f**king kidding me?!
>
> That doesn't actually constitute an argument. It certainly doesn't
> address anything I said.
It addresses the inanity of what you said. You don't even think the
middle class pays for this shit.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?
>
> When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need
> employees, are you going to give them health care? If so, good for you.
What if I instead allowed him to work overtime, put out a tip jar, or
sleep in the storage closet so that he could provide for his own
health-care? That wouldn't do, would it?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
> Where have you *been* for the last decade? Our civil liberties have
> already been shredded,
No shit, huh? So that's how government works? By seizing power and then
using that power to seize more power?
> and Obama is trying to give something back to us.
> I say, let him.
At the expense of our progeny.
It's you who don't get the argument, because to a person like yourself,
the corporations are always "they" and the government, the giant entity
which consistently operates at a profit to its members and a loss to its
shareholders, is always "we."
WE need to print more money.
WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
WE need to control industry.
What the statist doesn't understand is that, with one tiny shift, you're
not in the WE anymore.
> UHC is a much more worthy expense than, say, someone's
> pet war half the world away (plus, it has the added bonus of increasing
> quality of life, which has a corresponding effect on productivity, in
> the end benefiting our economy).
And having ceded 1/6 of our means to the government, what makes you so
certain they'll continue to use those means for "worthy expenses"?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/28/09 08:10, Shay wrote:
>> That doesn't actually constitute an argument. It certainly doesn't
>> address anything I said.
>
> It addresses the inanity of what you said. You don't even think the
> middle class pays for this shit.
You're not exactly supporting what you're saying...
(Not that I have a problem with the middle class paying for it, BTW).
--
Is Disney World the only people trap operated by a mouse?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>> and Obama is trying to give something back to us. I say, let him.
>
> At the expense of our progeny.
One of the reasons for healthcare reform is to try to control the
spiralling costs of healthcare. If we *don't* do anything now, then our
progeny are screwed. If, on the other hand, we can successfully reform
healthcare, then our progeny might be able to afford it themselves.
> It's you who don't get the argument, because to a person like yourself,
> the corporations are always "they" and the government, the giant entity
> which consistently operates at a profit to its members and a loss to its
> shareholders, is always "we."
You're confusing me with someone else. In fact, I'm one of the few
people I know who consistently defends corporations and their actions.
Most corporations aren't any more evil than most people are.
> WE need to print more money.
Over time, we actually do.
> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
Not necessarily, however it's a fact that right now taxes are quite low
(compared to historic levels). At one point in the US, the tax rate was
closer to 60%.
> WE need to control industry.
Only when industry has demonstrated irresponsibility that threatens the
welfare (physical or otherwise) of those around them, and has shown
themselves unable or unwilling to control themselves.
> What the statist doesn't understand is that, with one tiny shift, you're
> not in the WE anymore.
The only way I won't be in the "we" anymore is if the US declares I'm
not a citizen.
"We" is not the ruling majority.
"We" is everyone involved; that is, ALL citizens of the US.
>> UHC is a much more worthy expense than, say, someone's pet war half
>> the world away (plus, it has the added bonus of increasing quality of
>> life, which has a corresponding effect on productivity, in the end
>> benefiting our economy).
>
> And having ceded 1/6 of our means to the government, what makes you so
> certain they'll continue to use those means for "worthy expenses"?
Absolutely nothing. That's why I'm going to continue to watch
government over the years, instead of blindly trusting them. However,
that's not going to stop me from supporting good programs that can help
people.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> the corporations are always "they" and the government, the giant entity
> which consistently operates at a profit to its members and a loss to its
> shareholders, is always "we."
>
> WE need to print more money.
The government isn't the one that controls the money supply.
Look at your dollar bill. Whose name is on it? Surprise! A private corporation!
> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
> WE need to control industry.
If we controlled the banking system, that would probably be a good idea.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:18:04 -0500, Shay wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?
>>
>> When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need
>> employees, are you going to give them health care? If so, good for
>> you.
>
> What if I instead allowed him to work overtime, put out a tip jar, or
> sleep in the storage closet so that he could provide for his own
> health-care? That wouldn't do, would it?
No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum wage,
you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.
Plus if he's working overtime to make the money to afford it, and gets
sick, he needs to take time off (would you give him paid time off?) to go
to the doctor.
Would you give him paid time off to do preventative health tasks?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
>> WE need to control industry.
>
> If we controlled the banking system, that would probably be a good idea.
>
Replace WE with GWB and imagine where you might be in a few years. If
GWB controlled the banking system ...
Bet you don't like the sound of that.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
> Absolutely nothing. That's why I'm going to continue to watch
> government over the years, instead of blindly trusting them. However,
> that's not going to stop me from supporting good programs that can help
> people.
So, when you're watching the government a few years down the road and a
majority of whom you are not a part does something truly abhorrent with
the power you've given them, what will you, having ceded much, if not a
majority, of your financial power and having wiped your ass with the
Constitution, do about it?
Vote 'em out? Sure, we get to vote people out of Federal office every
two years, but the framers knew that wasn't enough. Knew that
redistribution from the few to the many could keep a party (little p) in
power. Knew that the rights of a minority could be squashed in two
years. So, they limited the power of the government -- no matter how
well intentioned that government might be.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:18:04 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?
>>>
>>> When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need
>>> employees, are you going to give them health care? If so, good for
>>> you.
>> What if I instead allowed him to work overtime, put out a tip jar, or
>> sleep in the storage closet so that he could provide for his own
>> health-care? That wouldn't do, would it?
>
> No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum wage,
> you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.
Not true for a young person. Now, he's not going to have health
insurance + car + his own apartment + cigarettes + beer, but $300 a
month will get insurance + yearly deductible + copays.
I'm not talking about minimum wage anyway. I'm talking about minimum
wage + tips, overtime, or a cot.
>
> Plus if he's working overtime to make the money to afford it, and gets
> sick, he needs to take time off (would you give him paid time off?) to go
> to the doctor.
There's no need for paid time off. When at work, I work 84 hours a week.
A person can make a trip to the doctor and still get 40-50 work hours
out of 84.
Now if the guy gets a flu and is bedridden for a week, I'll pay him if
he's worth the expense to keep, but I don't owe someone a new kidney
just because he mops my floor.
>
> Would you give him paid time off to do preventative health tasks?
Better yet, why don't I give him paid time off to work a second job?
Then he could afford plenty of preventative health care.
-Shay - who actually spent years working for minimum wage and less.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:24:02 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>
>Not working offshore, but still roughnecking. This will be my last job.
>I do not accept promotions (a non-issue at the moment due to the state
>of the industry :)) and have no desire to ever again lease my intellect
>to an employer or customer.
>
>My wife and I do have a tiny hobby/business, the facetious goal of which
>is to make back the $140 a month pay-cut I recently received. More than
>that would involve disengaging from intense, but non-$$ personal
>endeavors -- I'll report on one of these in November.
>
>Beyond that, I do have the intention of one day owning a coffee shop or
>small restaurant, though I won't do this until I can pay cash for the
>business. I save aggressively, so this isn't as outlandish as it sounds.
>
> -
Good to hear from you again. The oil industry is not one for ever especially if
you don't like the responsibility of telling people what to do. I used to carry
my own tools ;)
I hope that your future business does well but if you don't have much experience
in catering it might be a good idea to get a job in it first. (My brother-in-law
is a chef and he tells some horror stories about owners full of good intentions
but no experience. It is a business after all and you should make money ;)
Anyway report back in November and start posting some of your images when you
can.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
>>> WE need to control industry.
>>
>> If we controlled the banking system, that would probably be a good idea.
>>
>
> Replace WE with GWB and imagine where you might be in a few years. If
> GWB controlled the banking system ...
Uh, no. I'm talking about the federal reserve making monetary policy. By
"we" I mean "the government."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:29:44 -0500, Shay wrote:
>> No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum
>> wage, you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.
>
> Not true for a young person. Now, he's not going to have health
> insurance + car + his own apartment + cigarettes + beer, but $300 a
> month will get insurance + yearly deductible + copays.
The young people you know are pretty atypical, unless you're talking
about kids still living with their parents. In which case that saves you
money because they're still covered by their parents' insurance.
> I'm not talking about minimum wage anyway. I'm talking about minimum
> wage + tips, overtime, or a cot.
Yeah, and I'm sure that will still not be enough for them to afford a
decent plan.
>> Plus if he's working overtime to make the money to afford it, and gets
>> sick, he needs to take time off (would you give him paid time off?) to
>> go to the doctor.
>
> There's no need for paid time off. When at work, I work 84 hours a week.
> A person can make a trip to the doctor and still get 40-50 work hours
> out of 84.
Ah, so you're a bloody slave driver. Gotcha. Remind me NEVER to work
for you.
> Now if the guy gets a flu and is bedridden for a week, I'll pay him if
> he's worth the expense to keep, but I don't owe someone a new kidney
> just because he mops my floor.
But at the same time, you pay him not quite enough for him to live if he
can't afford the kidney operation. Let's see, kidney operation or
eating. Kidney operation or paying the rent.
Nice compassion.
>> Would you give him paid time off to do preventative health tasks?
>
> Better yet, why don't I give him paid time off to work a second job?
> Then he could afford plenty of preventative health care.
>
> -Shay - who actually spent years working for minimum wage and less.
You ain't the only one whose worked for minimum wage and less.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now if the guy gets a flu and is bedridden for a week, I'll pay him if
>> he's worth the expense to keep, but I don't owe someone a new kidney
>> just because he mops my floor.
>
> But at the same time, you pay him not quite enough for him to live if he
> can't afford the kidney operation. Let's see, kidney operation or
> eating. Kidney operation or paying the rent.
>
> Nice compassion.
>
The employee and I have a contract. He sells me his time and effort at
an agreed price. Many believe the way you do: that because I have a
contract with my employee, I owe him whatever YOU believe he may need
for a "complete" life. That's ludicrous.
What if, instead of an employee, he were a vendor. Would I be
discompassionate if I did not pay enough for his goods that he could
afford insurance, housing, transportation, etc.
The employee is selling labor, the vendor goods. The ONLY difference is
that I can hold the vendor's product in my hand. But that's against
years of programming, isn't it? Employees are a majority and employers
are a minority, so every election cycle, the candidates sell the idea to
people like yourself that the employer owes the employee more and more.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> Good to hear from you again. The oil industry is not one for ever especially if
> you don't like the responsibility of telling people what to do. I used to carry
> my own tools ;)
Thanks.
"No, when I go to sea, I go as a simple sailor, right before the mast,
plumb down into the forecastle, aloft there to the royal mast-head.
True, they rather order me about some, and make me jump from spar to
spar, like a grasshopper in a May meadow. And at first, this sort of
thing is unpleasant enough. It touches one's sense of honor,
particularly if you come of an old established family in the land, the
van Rensselaers, or Randolphs, or Hardicanutes. And more than all, if
just previous to putting your hand into the tar-pot, you have been
lording it as a country schoolmaster, making the tallest boys stand in
awe of you. The transition is a keen one, I assure you, from the
schoolmaster to a sailor, and requires a strong decoction of Seneca and
the Stoics to enable you to grin and bear it. But even this wears off in
time." -Melville
> I hope that your future business does well but if you don't have much experience
> in catering it might be a good idea to get a job in it first. (My brother-in-law
> is a chef and he tells some horror stories about owners full of good intentions
> but no experience. It is a business after all and you should make money ;)
Wife's got 16 years experience. She would run the coffee shop; I'd hold
the purse. :) And though it should indeed make money, it wouldn't *have*
to. I'm not counting on it for my livelihood.
> Anyway report back in November and start posting some of your images when you
> can.
>
No more images from me, though I have been piddling around with some
re-renders. I'll post any if they're fresh enough to be interesting to
those who have seen the originals.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>> No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum
>> wage, you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.
>
> Not true for a young person. Now, he's not going to have health
> insurance + car + his own apartment + cigarettes + beer, but $300 a
> month will get insurance + yearly deductible + copays.
I don't know how long it's been since you've worked for minimum wage,
but a few quick numbers here might help.
Minimum wage: ~$8.50/hr
Work week: 40 hours (w/o overtime, which many employers actively forbid)
Weekly wages: $340
Taxes: $120
Rent: $100
Utilities: $30
Food: $50
Remainder: $40/wk, or $180 / month.
So if you sit in a concrete room, never go anywhere or do anything (and
forget listening to music, reading books, or buying clothes even), then
you STILL can't afford even a basic health plan.
Oh, and that's without factoring in retirement accounts. Because, you
know, people have to save for retirement rather than expect the
government to take care of them.
Yeah, great system we have here.
Oh, and did I mention that many employers these days, aside from
forbidding overtime, also purposefully limit the hours their employees
work so that scheduling problems are easier to solve if they fire
somebody? Many minimum wage jobs are only 20 hours a week, so you can
turn off the electricity and forget about eating.
I'm not saying that healthcare should be free to anyone; but I do think
a certain amount of healthcare should be affordable to everyone. What
that amount is, and how much it ultimately will cost, is a separate subject.
As it is, though, our current system causes a great deal of unnecessary
expense. It works like this:
The poor cannot afford healthcare.
They never go to the doctor, missing out on preventive care and education.
They get sick, but attempt to treat themselves.
Many of them get better.
Some get sicker, until they are forced to admit themselves to an
Emergency Room (the costliest form of healthcare available).
The ER treats them.
The patient cannot pay.
Insurance companies (and the government) are forced to pay for the
treatments.
Now, we could eliminate a large number of those costs by providing
preventive care and education to a greater number of people. Every
dollar spent that way would save more money later by avoiding emergency
treatments. Even if the government paid for the whole thing (which I
don't think they should), it would save money in the long run, and so
would be fiscally advisable. Is that really such a bad thing?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, you believe that Government is inherently evil and that, given the
opportunity, those in power will take every chance they get to screw you
in every conceivable fashion just to piss you off?
Sorry, but I don't believe that. Government is no more evil than
Corporations or Individuals.
And your cynicism isn't going to stop me from casting my vote to shape
Government into a powerful force for good. I'm aware that I'll never
entirely succeed, but that doesn't mean I can't witness occasional
victories, does it?
If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your money
where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Replace WE with GWB and imagine where you might be in a few years. If
> GWB controlled the banking system ...
>
> Bet you don't like the sound of that.
Guess what?
SOMEone controls the banking system. It's a fact of life.
SOMEone controls the insurance industry (ok, a group of someones).
Right now, those someones have screwed over the American public. Just
for the sake of argument, would replacing those private someones with
public someones who are checked by transparency and accountability
really be that bad of an idea? After all, it would really be placing a
limit on their power (and their ability to screw us all).
Since you seem to have an inherent distrust of power, I'm surprised
you're not arguing for more regulation like that.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Beyond that, I do have the intention of one day owning a coffee shop or
> small restaurant, though I won't do this until I can pay cash for the
> business. I save aggressively, so this isn't as outlandish as it sounds.
Let us know when you do. If I'm ever in the area, I'd love to stop by
for a cup of coffee :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Employees are a majority, and for once, the majority actually is getting
something that's good for them rather than a minority getting to say how
things are going to be.
It's a shame that you find that idea repulsive.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:17:50 -0500, Shay wrote:
> The employee and I have a contract. He sells me his time and effort at
> an agreed price. Many believe the way you do: that because I have a
> contract with my employee, I owe him whatever YOU believe he may need
> for a "complete" life. That's ludicrous.
What's ludicrous is when the employer dictates the "agreed price" and the
employee has no choice but to accept the offer or be unable to afford
some other basic necessity.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:17:50 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> The employee and I have a contract. He sells me his time and effort at
>> an agreed price. Many believe the way you do: that because I have a
>> contract with my employee, I owe him whatever YOU believe he may need
>> for a "complete" life. That's ludicrous.
>
> What's ludicrous is when the employer dictates the "agreed price" and the
> employee has no choice but to accept the offer or be unable to afford
> some other basic necessity.
>
> Jim
Can I sell you an ear of corn for $1000 if that's what it takes to
fulfill my needs? Of course not, you as a consumer dictate the "agreed
price" of that corn.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Employees are a majority, and for once, the majority actually is getting
> something that's good for them rather than a minority getting to say how
> things are going to be.
>
> It's a shame that you find that idea repulsive.
>
> Jim
define: ownership
GIYF
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> So if you sit in a concrete room, never go anywhere or do anything (and
> forget listening to music, reading books, or buying clothes even), then
> you STILL can't afford even a basic health plan.
The poor effectively do not pay income taxes due to the earned income
tax credit. And $400 for rent? Get a room mate or 10. I did.
>
> Oh, and that's without factoring in retirement accounts. Because, you
> know, people have to save for retirement rather than expect the
> government to take care of them.
Horrid, isn't it?
>
> Yeah, great system we have here.
Yes it is, one in which a person is allowed to shape his life. And
somehow, most of us come out very nicely. I'm a manual laborer for
Christ's sake, and am still able to afford many luxuries.
>
> Oh, and did I mention that many employers these days, aside from
> forbidding overtime, also purposefully limit the hours their employees
> work so that scheduling problems are easier to solve if they fire
> somebody? Many minimum wage jobs are only 20 hours a week, so you can
> turn off the electricity and forget about eating.
Get a second job. If we'd stop taxing minorities (like business owners)
into the ground, there would be more opportunity.
>
> As it is, though, our current system causes a great deal of unnecessary
> expense. It works like this:
So why don't we buy the poor safe automobiles, healthful food,
anti-bacterial soap, surgical masks, latex gloves ... ?
> Insurance companies (and the government) are forced to pay for the
> treatments.
Get out of each other's pockets. Problem solved.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:56:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Employees are a majority, and for once, the majority actually is
>> getting something that's good for them rather than a minority getting
>> to say how things are going to be.
>>
>> It's a shame that you find that idea repulsive.
>>
>> Jim
>
> define: ownership
>
> GIYF
>
> -Shay
define: majority
GI*Y*F
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:55:51 -0500, Shay wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:17:50 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> The employee and I have a contract. He sells me his time and effort at
>>> an agreed price. Many believe the way you do: that because I have a
>>> contract with my employee, I owe him whatever YOU believe he may need
>>> for a "complete" life. That's ludicrous.
>>
>> What's ludicrous is when the employer dictates the "agreed price" and
>> the employee has no choice but to accept the offer or be unable to
>> afford some other basic necessity.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Can I sell you an ear of corn for $1000 if that's what it takes to
> fulfill my needs? Of course not, you as a consumer dictate the "agreed
> price" of that corn.
If every provider sells a gallon of gas (better example) for $7/gallon,
and you need to drive, you're screwed too.
that cuts both ways.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> So, you believe that Government is inherently evil and that, given the
> opportunity, those in power will take every chance they get to screw you
> in every conceivable fashion just to piss you off?
People are inherently "evil." The majority believe that any exercise of
power which results in the majority's benefiting is good. The majority
do not believe in guaranteed rights for minorities. If you are a member
of a minority (we all are), then that *should* scare the Hell out of you.
>
> Sorry, but I don't believe that. Government is no more evil than
> Corporations or Individuals.
Only much more powerful.
>
> And your cynicism isn't going to stop me from casting my vote to shape
> Government into a powerful force for good. I'm aware that I'll never
> entirely succeed, but that doesn't mean I can't witness occasional
> victories, does it?
Cynicism? Look at how popular smoking bans in restaurants are. If I own
a house, I can allow my guests to smoke in it, but if I sell hot dogs
at my house, I cannot, because YOU might want a hot dog. That's all the
justification it takes to impinge upon my property rights. A hot dog.
I shudder to think what will someone do to my rights over a toothache.
>
> If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your money
> where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
Or, support the idea upon which this country was founded: limited
government.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> so every election cycle, the candidates sell the idea to
> people like yourself that the employer owes the employee more and more.
What do you think the employers owe? Isn't a public health care option
getting the employers to pay *less* than how it is now?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your money
> where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
Somalia is currently the ultimate libertarian playground. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> SOMEone controls the insurance industry (ok, a group of someones). Right
> now, those someones have screwed over the American public. Just for the
> sake of argument, would replacing those private someones with public
> someones who are checked by transparency and accountability really be
> that bad of an idea? After all, it would really be placing a limit on
> their power (and their ability to screw us all).
>
> Since you seem to have an inherent distrust of power, I'm surprised
> you're not arguing for more regulation like that.
I'm not, because a corporation can't raise my insurance rate to whatever
the Hell they want and then throw me in prison for refusing to patronize
their business. Nor can a corporation obligate me and my ancestors to
pay off their debts.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>
>> So if you sit in a concrete room, never go anywhere or do anything
>> (and forget listening to music, reading books, or buying clothes
>> even), then you STILL can't afford even a basic health plan.
>
> The poor effectively do not pay income taxes due to the earned income
> tax credit. And $400 for rent? Get a room mate or 10. I did.
I have 5, and I'm paying $360 for my room. Get in the 21st century.
>> Oh, and that's without factoring in retirement accounts. Because, you
>> know, people have to save for retirement rather than expect the
>> government to take care of them.
>
> Horrid, isn't it?
Yes, actually. From a practical standpoint, people either need to save
for their own retirement, or public funds must be dedicated to their
support, or they must die in poverty and anguish.
We've already seen that public funds don't work (the idea relies upon an
expanding workforce, after all, and today's demographics have tossed
that notion out the window).
If people are unable to save (and many of them cannot afford to), then
they will die in squalor or work until the day they die.
> Yes it is, one in which a person is allowed to shape his life. And
> somehow, most of us come out very nicely. I'm a manual laborer for
> Christ's sake, and am still able to afford many luxuries.
In what market? Many manual jobs actually pay quite well.
> Get a second job. If we'd stop taxing minorities (like business owners)
> into the ground, there would be more opportunity.
Have you looked at the market in the last two years? People are
thankful for a single job at the moment.
>> As it is, though, our current system causes a great deal of
>> unnecessary expense. It works like this:
>
> So why don't we buy the poor safe automobiles, healthful food,
> anti-bacterial soap, surgical masks, latex gloves ... ?
If doing so cost less than the alternative, then it would make fiscal sense.
>> Insurance companies (and the government) are forced to pay for the
>> treatments.
>
> Get out of each other's pockets. Problem solved.
So, ERs should turn people away without proof of an estate large enough
to pay the bill?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:56:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Employees are a majority, and for once, the majority actually is
>>> getting something that's good for them rather than a minority getting
>>> to say how things are going to be.
>>>
>>> It's a shame that you find that idea repulsive.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> define: ownership
>>
>> GIYF
>>
>> -Shay
>
> define: majority
>
> GI*Y*F
>
> Jim
Yes, you believe the majority is more entitled to what I produce than I
am. That's a familiar way of thinking and the precise reason I fear
centralized power.
Forget all the spaghetti test arguments you've presented as
justification for some specific piece of legislation, you've just summed
up exactly how you feel about government power. So, keep trying to put
your boot on my neck, and I'll keep trying to break your foot. Your side
almost always wins, but I'll keep what liberty I can as long as I can.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> me and my ancestors to pay off their debts.
^^^^^^^^^
er, progeny
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> So, you believe that Government is inherently evil and that, given the
>> opportunity, those in power will take every chance they get to screw
>> you in every conceivable fashion just to piss you off?
>
> People are inherently "evil."
I disagree.
> The majority believe that any exercise of
> power which results in the majority's benefiting is good.
If all men are equal, then I don't see how you can escape that conclusion.
It's a numbers game. Where you have two groups of people with identical
needs per capita, and one group is larger than the other, the needs of
the larger group have precedence over the needs of the smaller group.
> Cynicism? Look at how popular smoking bans in restaurants are. If I own
> a house, I can allow my guests to smoke in it, but if I sell hot dogs
> at my house, I cannot, because YOU might want a hot dog. That's all the
> justification it takes to impinge upon my property rights. A hot dog.
A hot dog isn't impinging on your rights. Your desire to offer services
to the public carries with it certain responsibilities, including
offering access to everyone.
That same hot dog, to use your imagery, would require you to install a
wheel-chair ramp to your door, and a braille sign out front. I don't
see you complaining about those requirements, though.
>> If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your
>> money where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
>
> Or, support the idea upon which this country was founded: limited
> government.
To clarify: limited government set up for the benefit of the ordinary
citizens. You're arguing against that last part.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:30:33 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Good to hear from you again. The oil industry is not one for ever especially if
>> you don't like the responsibility of telling people what to do. I used to carry
>> my own tools ;)
>
>Thanks.
>
>"No, when I go to sea, ...
When I go to sea I go as a passenger :)
>Wife's got 16 years experience. She would run the coffee shop; I'd hold
>the purse. :) And though it should indeed make money, it wouldn't *have*
>to. I'm not counting on it for my livelihood.
>
That's good.
>> Anyway report back in November and start posting some of your images when you
>> can.
>>
>
>No more images from me, though I have been piddling around with some
>re-renders. I'll post any if they're fresh enough to be interesting to
>those who have seen the originals.
I think so :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
>> The majority believe that any exercise of power which results in the
>> majority's benefiting is good.
>
> If all men are equal, then I don't see how you can escape that conclusion.
What if the young decide to unburden themselves of the elderly? or the
mentally handicapped?
What if a family of ten needs your house more than you do?
> A hot dog isn't impinging on your rights. Your desire to offer services
> to the public carries with it certain responsibilities, including
> offering access to everyone.
Good thing you don't believe in private property, it's a mighty
inconvenient concept.
>
> That same hot dog, to use your imagery, would require you to install a
> wheel-chair ramp to your door, and a braille sign out front. I don't
> see you complaining about those requirements, though.
I'm more surprised to not see you complaining. The disabled are a mights
small minority.
>
> To clarify: limited government set up for the benefit of the ordinary
> citizens. You're arguing against that last part.
A government needs power to be "set up" for anyone. The more we move
towards totalitarianism, the more power the government has to benefit
their cronies.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/29/09 00:23, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your
>> money where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
>
> Somalia is currently the ultimate libertarian playground. :-)
No longer...
--
Race track: The place where windows clean people.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm done with this discussion. You know you're right and my position is
stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid. We're getting
nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> I'm not, because a corporation can't raise my insurance rate to whatever
> the Hell they want and then throw me in prison for refusing to patronize
> their business.
Why would doing this at a state level be any different?
The way I see this whole insurance thing is that the insurance companies
aren't actually producing anything. If there was the perfect knowledge and
competition that makes capitalism work best, nobody would need insurance,
and the entire insurance industry would be zero-sum. Plus, with perfect
knowledge, healthy people wouldn't buy insurance to start with, eliminating
the entire concept.
This, like military, police, and fire, seems like a good thing to have
centralized. Or are you also against having the fire department a
public/government service? (I'll leave police and fire out because that's
somewhat different.)
How about safety standards and other such regulation? Are you of the opinion
that paying inspectors and regulators to make sure your cars and buildings
are safe is inappropriate?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
