Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 3, 9:17*am, wrote:
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? companies responding to a customer: the US military |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:
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. hey froggie...guess what ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health care... |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 3, 11:19*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote: 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. hey froggie...guess what ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health care... As I said, govts provide good military for their own survival. I am no advocate of libertarianism, it would not work. We need govt regulations to dampen economic oscillations that would result in "economic poles" (monopolies, depressions etc.) I believe that it is up to workers to provide their own retirement, SS is just a safety net to prevent starvation. Your failure to plan for the future is YOUR problem. I believe that routine health care should NOT be covered by any insurance so that people will know what thye are really paying. An HMO for routine care is simply pre-paid routine health care and tax deductible medical savings accounts should cover that. To prevent HMO from skewing the prices of routine health care, maybe "insurance" for routine health care should be illegal. EVERYBODY should have inexpensive catastrophic health insurance. Govt should provide a safety net system that is inconvenient to use. It should be inconvenient so that people will not rely on it instead of pvt. The idea is to preserve what is good about private health care while providing a safety net that people will not always use. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 3, 11:30*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 3, 11:19*am, wf3h wrote: On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote: 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. hey froggie...guess what ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health care... As I said, govts provide good military for their own survival. which does not guarantee they will have good militaries. the middle east is a prime example. it's filled with hack armies *I am no advocate of libertarianism, it would not work. *We need govt regulations to dampen economic oscillations that would result in "economic poles" (monopolies, depressions etc.) exactly. *I believe that it is up to workers to provide their own retirement, SS is just a safety net to prevent starvation. *Your failure to plan for the future is YOUR problem. which is a meaningless statement. i, and a hundred million other american workers took full advantage of the opportunities of providing for our own retirement. after the rich decided they wanted to keep the money rather than provide for pensions, a hundred million workers enrolled in what the rich provided: 401k programs. the rich then decided they wanted THAT money, too, and took it. and now you're here to tell us that it's the fault of the middle class...the rich, with their $6000 umbrella stands, 62 trillion dollars in CDO's had nothing to do with it. gee. who knew a family of 4 making $50,000 was more powerful than a wall street banker making $150M a year. I believe that routine health care should NOT be covered by any insurance so that people will know what thye are really paying. which is a meaningless statement. no one cares what you believe. what matters is effectiveness. and our free market approach to health care doesn't work *An HMO for routine care is simply pre-paid routine health care and tax deductible medical savings accounts should cover that. *To prevent HMO from skewing the prices of routine health care, maybe "insurance" for routine health care should be illegal. *EVERYBODY should have inexpensive catastrophic health insurance. Govt should provide a safety net system that is inconvenient to use. It should be inconvenient so that people will not rely on it instead of pvt. it's funny in this country there's so much distrust of the middle class and NO distrust of the rich as you yourself show. you keep blaming the middle class for trusting the rich all the while insisting that moral hazard theory proves the middle class is just a bunch of lazy shiftless good for nothings. for the last 30 years we deregulated the rich and let them play. now we're paying for it AND being told it's our fault AND that we have to pay to keep the rich rich. great system |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote: 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. hey froggie...guess what ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health care... Institutions fail. Individuals can succeed in a free society. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 3, 11:31*am, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote: 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. hey froggie...guess what ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health care... Institutions fail. *Individuals can succeed in a free society. no one knows what that means. 'succeed' when you have to work to 70 because your 401k is trash? |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.- rather odd in that the USSR had a formidable military machine... |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
On health care reform | General | |||
New Health Care Program Changes! | General | |||
Health Care is a Bad Thing | General | |||
Health Care | General | |||
Health Care | General |