wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:59:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k07dj55knu2m5m920vva9hsjjagfg59qij@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US.
The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?




The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that
way.
Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.




The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.

Gingrich ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 12/27/09 1:14 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:59:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US.
The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?




The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that
way.
Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.




The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.

Gingrich ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.



It's always so nice when those with some means want to crap on those
with no means. It's so...Republican.

On 12/27/09 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:20:33 -0500,
wrote:

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.



It's always so nice when those with some means want to crap on those
with no means. It's so...Republican.

A republican would want to keep paying $60,000 a year for a menial job
and charge $30,000 for the crappy car they build.(making a tidy profit
along the way).
Unfortunately that economic model has been crushed by a global
marketplace where the cost of labor is driven down by what the
customer wants to pay. If those hillbillies in Tennessee can build a
Honda for $20,000 that performs better than a Chevy, people buy it, no
matter what aging ex-football stars say.



If those hillbillies in japan can build that car for $20,000, it's
because they have a national health care system that spreads its cost
over the entire country, and not the manufacturer of that car.

I know many highly skilled construction workers whose straight rate is
$50 an hour. The morons who whine about this say construction workers
aren't worth $50 an hour times the usual 1800-hour work year for a total
of $90,000 a year. Of course, very, very few workers get 1800 hours a
year or even close to it. For full pension and welfare benefits, 1200
hours a year is considered a full work year. That's about $60,000, and
from that must be deducted health care and pension payments. There's a
lot of downtime in construction work.

On the other hand there are many crooks and near crooks on wall street
who make many times that $60,000 a year. Now there is a group that is
grossly overpaid.

On 27/12/2009 12:44 PM, Harry wrote:

If those hillbillies in japan can build that car for $20,000, it's
because they have a national health care system that spreads its cost
over the entire country, and not the manufacturer of that car.

Lets examine that in more detail. Japanese can make an auto for $20,000
in Japan and has health care. Probably the same class, style, power
would have to be at least $35,000 at GM and be less reliable, and that
doesn't include the 2009 $60,000 per auto bailout.

So what else is wrong.

First, when a Japanese company screws up, management is expected to fix
it immediately or resign immediately. No big fat pensions with
severences either, just gone. It is the only honorable thing he can do,
other than to commit suicide.

Boards and owners don't like excuses. They like solid realistic well
executed plans. Start fouling up here and your next job is cleaning the
toilets. Which is where most Japanese executives started. None of this
float to the top like scum.

Workers take individual responsibility for the health of their company,
which includes the quality and cost of their work. Customer
satisfaction. If something is wrong with their work and the customer
finds it, they will learn about it. If the employee doesn't straighten
up, the fedearation (union) might fire them first as the federation
knows screwing around will cost their membership. Or the possibility of
some after work corrections activity.

Companies in Japan make life long commitments to employees. Honor and
integrity mater. None of this hit 50 and lay you off to duck pension
costs. Hell, a manager there would find himself gone for trying that
BS. Get caught fixing the books, maybe 2 years later you quietly
disappear and your family in disgrase can't get jobs.

A whole different culture, much more defined social behavior where honor
and integrity mater more than ruthlessness and corruption.

wrote in message
...
The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?


Line 37 is "after expenses" and most of the top 1% are in some kind of
business. They manage to live off of "expenses" and don't have to
report that as "income". I guess you have never filled out a schedule
C.

I guess you don't know much about me. In any case, the numbers you quoted
weren't substantiated.

Once I got off of a W-2 and started working on a 1099 I suddenly had
lots of deductions I couldn't take before.

If you have not heard Buffett's statement on taxes you haven't been
paying attention., Google it.

You posted it, thus it's up to you to justify it.



Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.

Have you actually tried to explain this to a young person?
Most are ****ed they have to pay into Medicare and SS.
If they don't get insurance at work, the idea of buying it is foreign
to them.

Yes. My niece gets it and she's 13.


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than
their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to
do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's
a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.

So is "the pursuit of happiness" (driving make me happy) but that is a
goal, not a protected right.

As long as that happiness doesn't intrude on others. And, yes, it's a goal.
A good one. One that makes sense morally and fiscally. Your happiness in
driving your car, isn't even close to the same thing.

.
on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

From your article
* require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also
apply to Congress;
* select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a
comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by
one-third;
* limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual
Federal Budget.

None of which was implemented.


It sounds like a formula for fiscal responsibility to me.

Sounds like a Republican agenda.


It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

I guess you didn't watch the debates

Nothing came of anything he said. He was wrong on many things, and he faded
away as most kook should.


You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is
that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

They aren't viable because nobody actually gets to hear them. The
debates are completely off limits to anyone who wasn't propped up by
the party aparachicks

Ah... like Nader? I thought he decided the 2000 election.

These days there is very little difference between the Ds and Rs. All
you have to do is look at who gives them most of their money.
Elections come down to abortion and guns. Nobody talks about banks,
medical conglomerates or even the insurance companies in any real
sense. Just look at the bills they are hashing out in conference right
now. Wars keep on going on and rich people keep getting richer.

Except until the last election. Thus, the Republicans were mostly voted out.
Change is happening, albeit slowly and imperfectly, but it is happening.




It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.

How was the runaway wage spiral management's problem. If there was a
problem, it was in not standing up to ridiculous demands ... but some
companies did.

If you don't know, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you in this
place. Look it up, do some independent reading on the subject.

They were Japanese and they built their factories in Tennessee where
the union did not operate behind the power of a government gun..(AKA a
"right to work state")
Ask yourself, who sold the most cars last year?

Cars are only one industry, but in any case, the Japanese economy is no
where near as stable or viable as the US economy.


I won't force people to go to school, the global economy will ... or
we will be paying them welfare until the government goes broke.

Well, hang on. Either it's the global economy or what? Our entire economy is
pretty much linked to the global economy. So, "paying them welfare"
(something we're not doing anyway), isn't outside the global econonmy.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you have not heard Buffett's statement on taxes you haven't been
paying attention., Google it.

You posted it, thus it's up to you to justify it.



"Buffett says he pays 18 percent of his salary to the IRS while the
rest of his staff pays nearly twice that - 33 percent, a lopsided
equation that put Buffett in a Robin Hood frame of mind. "

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1


Which has nothing to do with the figures you quoted...

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way,
then
yes she'll get it.

Have you actually tried to explain this to a young person?
Most are ****ed they have to pay into Medicare and SS.
If they don't get insurance at work, the idea of buying it is foreign
to them.

Yes. My niece gets it and she's 13.


Let's see if she still remembers at 25, although she won't really have
a choice..


Of course she will. Why wouldn't she if it's consistently reinforced.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.

So is "the pursuit of happiness" (driving make me happy) but that is a
goal, not a protected right.

As long as that happiness doesn't intrude on others. And, yes, it's a
goal.
A good one. One that makes sense morally and fiscally. Your happiness in
driving your car, isn't even close to the same thing.

Why not? What if driving my car was a condition of my employment.

Which has little to do with "happiness" as described.

The point is you lefties are real quick to quibble about my right to
bear arms, parsing a comma in a passage that says "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" but you make up
rights that don't exist.

Give me a break. Suddenly, when you run out of logical argument, you claim
it's the lefties taking your guns. I guess you forgot about the recent
Supreme Court ruling.

It just says "Promote the general welfare", it says nothing about
"providing" it..

So, how is ignoring 40 million without healthcare promotion?

For that matter, "privacy" is not guaranteed either.
I suppose the founding fathers didn't foresee the internet and the
wire tap.

Sure... sounds like you're in favor of restricting women's rights. That's
the typical argument. Your right to have a gun is ok, but a woman's right to
have control over her own body isn't. Insurance covers Viagra.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

I guess you didn't watch the debates

Nothing came of anything he said. He was wrong on many things, and he
faded
away as most kook should.

That kook did get people thinking about the deficit for a few years.
That is not a bad thing


That kook didn't do much for informed debate because he was a kook. Same
goes for Ron Paul.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

They were Japanese and they built their factories in Tennessee where
the union did not operate behind the power of a government gun..(AKA a
"right to work state")
Ask yourself, who sold the most cars last year?

Cars are only one industry, but in any case, the Japanese economy is no
where near as stable or viable as the US economy.

The Japanese car business in the US is doing just fine tho and that
was my point. If you work for Honda or Toyota in Tennessee you are
still working. A UAW worker in the rust belt ... not so much.


So far...
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/toy...decades-report

--
Nom=de=Plume