O/T: One Down

Page 13 of 14  


--
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

There are still candidates that support liberty and the original intent of the US Framers. Beyond that, I like to vote against the party in power. In the absence of a sane government, I'll take gridlock. The more the politicians fight, the less they get done, the better off we are for the most part.

Never confuse your inability to respond effectively with a lack of content on my part.

They are not all beneath my expectations.

Regularly and with gusto.

With great ease, peace of mind, and contentment.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:57:46 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

Not in the last election. If you did, then you're either lying now or you lied then.
You stated categorically that you didn't vote for either incumbent and explained why. Shall I quote the text for you TIMbullshit?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

Before the election I said I might not vote, I was so disgusted.
After the election I said I did not vote *for any of the mainstream candidates*.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:
... snip

... and even in non-free societies, this principle prevails, it just doesn't redound to peoples' benefit. In a society being espoused here where the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need", the person with the ability is going to act in his own self interest and not put forth any more effort than required to keep himself in the good graces of the commissar and out of trouble. Why bother to pursue excellence or make significant sacrifices only to see any resulting reward mandatorily re-distributed to someone who either lacked the skill or motivation to achieve? Same is true in a repressive society, people act in self-preservation to keep themselves and their families safe. In both these cases, these actions do not advance or elevate society, but they do exhibit the fact that people always act to improve their own personal condition.
The shining element of Smith's observation applied to a capitalist society is that when those actions of self-interest allow people to reap the benefits of their labors, all of society benefits. There will always be people in society unable or unwilling to be successful and to some, bad things just happen. However, that is where charitable acts and the unforced generosity of those who are successful can come into play. In some cases, an argument can be made for local government intervention to alleviate such issues. Using the federal government however, to pluck the fruits of peoples' labor to give to others, when taken to a certain level will have the results identified above.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:56:20 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

So money is the only motivator?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Do you work for free?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

No, there are many motivations, some of which cause eyebrows to shoot up!
Consider Jonas Salk, peering through the microscope throughout countless nights and weekends. He was, without doubt, motivated by the HATE of seeing children in iron lungs, by PRIDE in thinking "If I can solve this, people will give me the recognition I crave," by out-and-out GREED in that "I'll make enough money to do the kind of research I want to do without having to suck-up to administrators and bureaucrats!" and by envy of that goddamn Albert Sabin who's getting all the press.
By a combination of altruism and venality, we've eradicatd Polio in my lifetime - except in areas run by Islamic extremists (and I was around in 1976 when Smallpox disappeared). I've lived in fortunate times.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

No. Time, money, reward all roll together. In the real world, success is often the reward for extra effort and significant success the reward for extraordinary effort. We all are providing a slice of our lives to our work and expect to be compensated accordingly. Extraordinary effort in advancing an organization's objectives or ensuring a project's success is professionally rewarding, but those efforts often demand a large slice of one's personal life -- soccer or basekeball games missed, extended or frequent travel, long hours at the office and away from home. It is not unreasonable that those who put forth such effort should rightly expect monetary reward for such effort. A plaque, thank-you, or title may be nice for the recipient, but does little to compensate both the laborer and his family for the sacrifice. Fiscal reward provides both laborer and family with some amount of compensation for the other things given up. In a confiscatory society, why should someone make those sacrifices, often giving up family time and other elements of personal life if most of the reward is going to be taxed such that the benefit is barely noticeable and the confiscated amounts used to subsidize somebody who is [maybe] working a straight 40 hours, attending all of the family events and other benefits of time away from work?
So in your mind, the person working 60+ hour weeks should be happy to give 60 to 70% of the added compensation for such labor (either by direct overtime compensation or associated salary rewards) away so that it can be used to provide largesse to people not working or barely putting forth the effort?
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure why I bother, however; -Think about what you are saying. If there are sufficient premature infant deaths to skew life expectancy results for a nation the size of the US, then your standards of medical care, (despite the herculean efforts you alluded to,) must rank as some of the most appalling and inept in the world.

You posted the same grossly out of date statistics on breast cancer in another thread some time ago. I refuted them then and gave you cites. It's interesting to me that you and I probably have the same political leanings, however, your propensity to post out of date, unsubstantiated, ill thought out rubbish simply makes you an easy target for the left. ..... I'm beginning to feel sorry for you, and that can't be good.

Six inches? ......... That's not a knife! : )
diggerop
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
diggerop wrote:

Heh, a great scene.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin said:

Wasn't it! Pretty good movie back in the day.
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

That America can afford to waste more money on health care than other nations doesn't alter the fact that a great deal of that expenditure is indeed wasted. That pro sports teams can afford MRI machines while many millions of Americans can't get basic health care is also not something to be proud of.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
diggerop wrote:

Interesting post. Much of the world seems to have been able to make "socialized" medicine work with varying degrees of success, one measure of that being that the citizens of many nations live longer than Americans while their governments spend less per capita on health care. But in America a powerful lobby protects the profits of the health care industry, that's why Americans pay more and often get less--the administrative overhead of health insurance companies consumes 20% of what Americans pay for insurance. I don't know what portion of the current reform legislation will survive to become law, I suspect just reigning in the worst abuses of the insurance companies might be all we get. So long as members of Congress are taking millions in campaign donations from the health care industry I'm dubious as to how much real reform we'll see.
"Socialized" in this context means anything that puts people's health ahead of the profits of health care corporations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Just what percentage of the US GDP was expended on best-in-class medical care *before* the government decided to make Medicare/aid a "right" and "guarantee" coverage?
Or if you prefer:
What does a given procedure cost when you tell your provider, "I have no insurance, I will be paying cash"? How does this cost compare to what your insurance provider pays? How does that cost compare to what Medicare/aid pays?

And if profit is minimized or dismissed, where shall the resources for research and delivery come from? What will attract the brightest minds to bleeding-edge medical research? Who's going to bother capitalizing the estimated $1B it takes to get a new wonder drug to market? Shall we all just become slaves to the state and let the political oligarchs run everything?
Oh, and one other thing. If the US succumbs to the phony pleasures of socialized medicine, what's the rest of the world going to do? With our government in control of all things medical, capping prices, and limiting delivery to those sufficiently worthy (as determined by the health czar), the implicit subsidies to medical technology and drugs will disappear. The rest of the planet isn't going to get drugs and technology at a discount because the "rich Americans" will not longer be paying the premium for them. Notwithstanding my contempt for collectivism in all its forms, it would be sweet to watch the infernal finger waggers around the world have to actually pay the real price for their leading edge medicine for a change....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Did I say we need to eliminate or even minimize profits? No? Then why did you react as if I did? I believe in free enterprise, and profit is a powerful motivation for the benefit of the public *provided there is a savvy cop on the beat*. Unfortunately putting profit ahead of all else can also lead insurance companies to deny treatment to people who need it. Or it can lead doctors to set up imaging clinics which bill insurance companies for needless x-rays or MRIs etc., and we all pay for that. Drug companies--well anyone paying attention has seen them conceal studies showing dangerous side effects of their products and so on, all in the name of profit. No, I'm not saying we should make medicine unprofitable, I'm saying we need to guard against the mindset in which executive bonuses and stock options and quarterly earnings are *all* that matters.

As always it's only a matter of time until you jump off the rhetorical cliff with your hair on fire and a scream on your lips--are all libertarians such drama queens? So you're a believer in the fictional death panels huh? Figures. Oh, BTW, whoever told you medical advances happen only in America was pulling your leg. The next time you have an MRI reflect on how much of the development of that technology occurred outside America, or if you ever need a hip replacement thank the British orthopedic surgeon who pioneered that surgery, and so on and so forth. Damn, not everything is invented in or paid for by America, who knew?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

OK. How much profit is "enough"? How much is "too much"? And, most importantly, who is wise enough, honest enough, and fair enough to make those decisions? The government?

Misdirection, ad hominem nonsense. I don't "believe" in any of your silly straw men. I believe that there is cause and effect, and that when you distort a market with force (which is what government always does implicitly) you may get temporal, proximate improvement, but only at the cost of doing damage to something/someone/somewhere else.

No one - especially me - believes that "all" advances happen in the US. But the majority of the leading edge technologies and pharma do. What I wrote above is remarkable only to people who've not bothered to look into the economics of pharma particularly (and/or who are more interested in arguing for its own sake). When/if the Wise Benevolent Infallible Government gets to decide just how much profit is "enough", the pharma companies will be unable to have the US consumer pick up the bulk of the tab for R&D and delivery to market. This means the rest of the developed world will see their prices - for those new, bleeding edge drugs - go up. I can't wait to hear the various collectivist here start howling about how unfair it is that their medicine costs "too much".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

There will always be people who game the system, whatever the system might be.
Have you ever heard of an American going to Canada or the UK for treatment?
Now, to be fair, there is a growing market in "medical tourism" where folks who need heart-valve replacements, breast augmentation, or whatever, go to places like Mexico or India for top-quality but low-priced procedures. Those episodes are, however, driven by economics, not quality of care.
As for life-expectancy as a metric for health care efficacy, the U.S. has conditions that effect life expectancy that many other nations do not, or at least not in the same number:
* Gang warfare (France excepted) * Executions of criminals (Iran excepted) * Deaths due to Islamic Extremists (Spain, UK, Indonesia excepted) * Vehicle accidents (UK, Australia, and other places that drive on the wrong side excepted) * Invaders of homes where the resident is armed to the teeth * Many who just need killin'
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Yep. The Republicans blew it.
Immediately before the vote on the big bill, the House passed the "Stupak Amendment." This amendment prohibited any federal funds to be used for abortion. Without this amendment, the "Blue Dog" Democrats would not have supported the final bill. One hundred and seventy-six Republicans voted for the amendment and it passed.
Had that amendment failed, the bulk of the 50-odd "Blue Dogs" would have voted against the final bill.
As a tactical matter, the pro-life Republicans should have voted in favor of abortion that one time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:33:18 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"

I wonder if the Senators know just how angry the majority of the populace is over this insignificant little item. <g>
Hmm, I wonder if the local surplus shops have flak jackets... It may get ugly in a hurry.
-- The Smart Person learns from his mistakes. The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others. And then there are all the rest of us... -----------------------------------------------------
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.