On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. History has
shown this to be true. When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails. The Soviet Union never developed much for
consumers and was always behind the USA, same for China and all other
state run economies. Without capitalism, my father would be dead.
Consider ALL of the things that make your life easier, they were
developed by pvt enterprise. Yes, the first IC chips were made for
Titan missile guidance systems but TI would not have even done that if
they did not see the possibility of developing consumer electronics.
Research and development is insanely expensive and the only reason to
do it is the potential for profit. I am working on a new type of
mammography system but without a profit motive, I would not even
consider it because the cost would be too high/unit for me to even pay
for the R&D or to even pay salaries. However, when you consider the
number of mammography units (roughly 10,000 in the USA) and the
projected selling price of the part we develop to the system maker
(roughly $30,000), you get big amounts of money, enough to make
development feasible. IS my technology necessary? NO, existing tech
works but does it slowly and delivers much more radiation than
necessary. Thus, profit is the driving motivation.