OT: Frontline / Sick Around the World / Online & 3/31 on PBS

HeyBub wrote:

> And drivers are turned down for having too many wrecks or moving
> violations.

Because of their actions. Do you think anyone chooses to get cancer?

> Drivers in these conditions can, however, get insurance
> at elevated rates under various state "pool" provisions. The same
> idea is available for health insurance. There's no absence of health
> insurance; for some, there's an absence of CHEAP health insurance.

For "CHEAP" substitute the more accurate "affordable."

I can see people who choose to smoke, for example, having to pay higher
rates. But cutting off health insurance for innocent people on the grounds
that covering them will reduce the profits of the insurance company is
barbaric. That case in California last year where the woman who got breast
cancer resulting in her insurance company cutting her off in the middle of
her chemo treatment was instructive. It came out in the arbitration
hearings that the insurance company has a quota for canceling coverage of
customers who might need expensive treatment and employees are rewarded with
bonuses for meeting the quota--to hell with the customers who are left with
no health care. The arbitration judge awarded the woman nine million
dollars which hopefully stung enough to make the rat-bastards at the
insurance companies take notice.

> The biggest error in these sorts of scare-mongering (or consciousness
> raising, depending on your point of view) programs is that lack of
> insurance is not equal to lack of health care. The logical conclusion
> these mongers would hope you reach is that only a
> government-sponsored program can "fix" the situation.

Clearly a govt.-run system will have problems, witness the decline in care
in Canada since the monthly insurance fee is so low it can't begin to fund
the system and thus massive taxpayer support is needed. Their supreme court
ruled a few years ago that life-threatening delays in diagnosis and
treatment are widespread and thus refusing to let citizens go outside the
govt. system is unconstitutional. However other nations seem to do well
with a mixed govt.-private system, those who can afford private insurance
are free to pay for it, those who can't afford it can join the govt.-run
system.

> The statistic they bandy about is 40 million uninsured in this
> country. 15 million of these are illegal aliens, 10 million are
> eligible for Medicaid for which they'll apply when they get sick, 6
> million are between jobs that provide insurance, a bunch are young
> and healthy and choose not to have insurnace, some object to
> insurance on religious grounds, and a few other categories.
>
> Doing the arithmetic, you end up with exactly eleven people in the
> entire country who are disadvantaged by the existing health insurance
> system. Evidently, the producers of the program you endorse found all
> eleven for the documentary.

Delightful, who would have thought that the pain and anguish of millions of
your fellow citizens could be transformed into such an amusing quip.

> Even IF the 40 million are imperiled, a government-run health
> insurance system to fix the "problem," stands an excellent chance of
> screwing up the health care delivery system for 260 million. Just to
> say "everybody's covered."
>
> Meh.

Sure, so long as you have coverage who gives a crap about the millions who
don't, it's not like any of them are your friends or family, right?

>
> Based on your spelling maybe some of that money needs to go to education.

Point proven...even if an uneducated slump like me can afford HI, then
just about anyone could.

> So in your view people too poor to afford health insurance are just SOL, if
> they die in the streets--tough luck, not your problem.

That is what charities are for, not government.

> I'll tell you what, we'll let you stop paying taxes, but you don't get to
> drive on public roads anymore, the cops and fire dept. won't come to your
> house when you need them, no more mail delivery and so on, you can take care
> of everything by yourself. Good luck.

Now your talking. This is what the federal government should be
spending tax dollars on; Infrastructure and homeland security. I
don't even believe they should be managing the education system. It
now cost more to send a child to public school then some private
school.

> Having known people who lived in the USSR and were lucky enough to get out,
> you don't have a clue if you think the injustices you imagine you suffer
> from are anything like on the same scale. Of course if it bothers you
> enough you're always free to leave.

This is exactly the road we are headed down. As our government grows,
we get closer and closer to socialism. With the gross mismanagement
of funds, our leaders have proven time and time again that they are
clueless and incapable of running this country. They have bankrupted
social security, the FDIC is just about bankrupt, numerous states are
bankrupt and unable to pay tax refunds, even the federal reserve is
close to bankrupt. They are now trying to pass a bill to take over
401K plans. It was the government's own FHA that lead to the crash of
the markets. These are the people you trust to manage YOUR money. You
are a fool if you do. What congress is doing should send a chill up
your spine. For crying out loud, In the midst of all this economic
turmoil, congress voted a pay raise for them. Their behavior is
bordering on criminal and if we the people do not shout out and stop
it, this country is doomed the same fate as all other socialist
countries.

Remember - we are not supposed to be working for the government. THEY
WORK FOR US!

DGDevin wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> That's a separate issue. Politicians need two things to stay in
>> office: votes and money. The money supplied by the "special
>> interests" offset the cries of the easily manipulated unwashed masses.
>>
>> It's a balancing act. Sometimes the mob prevails, sometimes those who
>> are most affected win.
>
> "The mob," that's cute, you're really not all that impressed by the whole
> democracy thing, are you. That view is usually held by those who assume
> that in the good old days they would have been among the patrician class,
> it never seems to cross their minds that they might have been piling muck
> in a bog with their bare hands while yelling, "Help! Help! I'm being
> repressed!"

The nation's Founders weren't too enthralled with democracy either,that is
why the established a Republic. The idea of a pure democracy (as we are
seeing today) truly is "the mob" ruling. It is 51% of people who don't pay
income taxes voting in politicians who continue to promise to punish the
49% of those who do pay taxes and obtaining more support from some of that
49% by telling *them* that they are really only going after the 5% of wage
earners who are now paying 60% of all income taxes. Pure democracy can be
likened to two foxes and a chicken deciding on the lunch menu. That is why
the Republic outlined in the Constitution was established -- to make sure
that no one swing group could control the direction and fortunes of the
country. Unfortunately, too many "progressives" going back to at least
Woodrow Wilson decided that was too "quaint" and "inefficient" and that
the "voices of the people" should be the driving force for all policies.
So now we have all these neat "innovations" to the constitution, like the
Income Tax -- a direct tax on the citizens of the various states that has
now managed to place the federal government pretty much in absolute control
of every citizen's life due to the control of how those taxes are spent.

>
>> Lobbyists are good. Do you really want the electorate to decide the
>> railway tariff for unrendered yak-fat? Or do you want the railroads
>> and the yak wranglers to have input?
>
> I don't want the final decision to rest on how much the yak-fat cartel
> contributs to the campaign funds of key legislators, which is often the
> way
> it is now. The banking industry spend three hundred million lobbying for
> deregulation in the mid-90s, they got what they wanted and then indulged
> in an orgy of greed and incompetence which has put all of us in trouble.
> Lobbyists need to be kept on a short leash, and fat chance of either party
> ever agreeing to that.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

What else would you like to spend my money on? How about STD
reasearch. How about field mice in Calafornia. How about private
jets for princess peloci. How about the killing of babies!

Oh yeah - you are already doing that for me. If you want health
insurance...GET A JOB! If you cannot work, then turn to your family
or charities for help. I should be able to dictate where my money
goes, what charities I give it to...not you, the feds or anyone else.
Face it folks...this country aint so great any more.

Welcome to the USSA

"DGDevin" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Now your talking. This is what the federal government should be
>> spending tax dollars on; Infrastructure and homeland security. I
>> don't even believe they should be managing the education system. It
>> now cost more to send a child to public school then some private
>> school.
>
> So send your kids to private schools, what's stopping you?

Well, he's pay taxes for the public schools, and the fees for the
private school as well. Not all can afford to pay for school twice.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DGDevin wrote:
>>
>> I can see people who choose to smoke, for example, having to pay
>> higher rates. But cutting off health insurance for innocent people
>> on the grounds that covering them will reduce the profits of the
>> insurance company is barbaric.
>
> And what about the thousands - or more - who depend on the dividends from
> their insurance company stock to make ends meet? Maybe even to buy
> insurance of their own? You would deprive them of their income by
> mandating a company's policy? How cruel!


Not curel at all, they knew going in that investing was a gamble whether
they need the money or not. No one forced tham to invest in the stock
market.

Snip

>
> I submit that making policy affecting millions based on whether it
> benefits my family or friends is a bad metric. Thank heavens our leaders
> don't make decisions based on their own personal needs but, instead,
> consider the good of the entire country.

Yeah, what country do you live in?

KIMOSABE wrote:
> "Sick around the World" can be seen at this website. It was shown last
> year
> on PBS. You can see it online. The program is described in the message
> below
> from Frontline will be on Tuesday, March 31.
>
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
>
>
> "You might be surprised," a health policy expert says near the start
> of this
> week's FRONTLINE, before listing some of the reasons people are
> routinely
> denied health insurance. "People are turned down because they have hay
> fever, because they have acne. People are turned down if they're 20
> pounds
> overweight. Bedwetting, ear infections in kids..."

And drivers are turned down for having too many wrecks or moving violations.
Drivers in these conditions can, however, get insurance at elevated rates
under various state "pool" provisions. The same idea is available for health
insurance. There's no absence of health insurance; for some, there's an
absence of CHEAP health insurance.


>
> Unfortunately, after watching "Sick Around America" this Tuesday night
> (check local listings), you might come away thinking those denied
> coverage
> for frivolous reasons are actually the lucky ones.
>
> In this film, producer Jon Palfreman travels the country talking to
> some of
> the millions of Americans who are uninsured, underinsured, or at risk
> of
> bankruptcy from unpaid medical bills. He meets a woman who's dropped
> by her
> insurer not long after she receives a cancer diagnosis. He finds a 23
> year-old engineering student who had planned to head off to grad
> school,
> but, instead, works a low-wage job for the affordable health coverage
> he
> needs to cover a chronic condition.
>
> And then there's the tragic story of a young woman who dies of Lupus
> after
> being dropped by her state's Medicaid program. "I'm not afraid to say
> it,"
> her doctor tells FRONTLINE in an emotional interview. "Nikki didn't
> die
> from Lupus. "Nikki died... secondary to the complications of a
> failing
> health care system."

I have it on good authority (Greg House) that nobody gets Lupus. There's
obviously something wrong here.

[snip]

The biggest error in these sorts of scare-mongering (or consciousness
raising, depending on your point of view) programs is that lack of insurance
is not equal to lack of health care. The logical conclusion these mongers
would hope you reach is that only a government-sponsored program can "fix"
the situation.

The statistic they bandy about is 40 million uninsured in this country. 15
million of these are illegal aliens, 10 million are eligible for Medicaid
for which they'll apply when they get sick, 6 million are between jobs that
provide insurance, a bunch are young and healthy and choose not to have
insurnace, some object to insurance on religious grounds, and a few other
categories.

Doing the arithmetic, you end up with exactly eleven people in the entire
country who are disadvantaged by the existing health insurance system.
Evidently, the producers of the program you endorse found all eleven for the
documentary.

Even IF the 40 million are imperiled, a government-run health insurance
system to fix the "problem," stands an excellent chance of screwing up the
health care delivery system for 260 million. Just to say "everybody's
covered."

Meh.

Swingman wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote
>
>
>>Excellent parable. It also illustrates the different methodologies in
>>capturing wild pigs. We right-wingers wouldn't go to all the trouble of
>>corn and fences and time.
>>
>>We'd just shoot the porkers the first day.
>
>
> From an age based perspective, and the view looking over Attila the Hun's
> right shoulder, I would shoot those casting the corn/building the fences ...
> save a damn sight more time and angst.
>
>

Didn't you Texans do that in the past with a different brand of sheep
herders?

http://www.jcs-group.com/oldwest/war/grass.html

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DGDevin wrote:
>>
Thank heavens our leaders don't make
> decisions based on their own personal needs but, instead, consider the
> good of the entire country.
>
You're kidding right?

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> The nation's Founders weren't too enthralled with democracy either,that is
> why the established a Republic. The idea of a pure democracy (as we are
> seeing today) truly is "the mob" ruling. It is 51% of people who don't pay
> income taxes voting in politicians who continue to promise to punish the
> 49% of those who do pay taxes and obtaining more support from some of that
> 49% by telling *them* that they are really only going after the 5% of wage
> earners who are now paying 60% of all income taxes. Pure democracy can be
> likened to two foxes and a chicken deciding on the lunch menu. That is why
> the Republic outlined in the Constitution was established -- to make sure
> that no one swing group could control the direction and fortunes of the
> country. Unfortunately, too many "progressives" going back to at least
> Woodrow Wilson decided that was too "quaint" and "inefficient" and that
> the "voices of the people" should be the driving force for all policies.
> So now we have all these neat "innovations" to the constitution, like the
> Income Tax -- a direct tax on the citizens of the various states that has
> now managed to place the federal government pretty much in absolute control
> of every citizen's life due to the control of how those taxes are spent.

The message below was sent by e-mail to me recently. I believe it fits
nicely into this thread.
______________________________________________________________

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in
the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed
one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and
stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told
him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting
communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his
country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange
question. He asked, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The
young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a
suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are
used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place
where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they
begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you
have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The
pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to
eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and
around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to
eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten
how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.”

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism
and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as
supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies,
dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine,
drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a
time.

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
the gate on America.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you
can do it yourself.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough
to take away everything you have"

Thomas Jefferson


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"HeyBub" wrote

> Excellent parable. It also illustrates the different methodologies in
> capturing wild pigs. We right-wingers wouldn't go to all the trouble of
> corn and fences and time.
>
> We'd just shoot the porkers the first day.

From an age based perspective, and the view looking over Attila the Hun's
right shoulder, I would shoot those casting the corn/building the fences ...
save a damn sight more time and angst.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

DGDevin wrote:
.
>
> I'll tell you what, we'll let you stop paying taxes, but you don't
> get to drive on public roads anymore, the cops and fire dept. won't
> come to your house when you need them, no more mail delivery and so
> on, you can take care of everything by yourself. Good luck.

There are FAR more security guards (paid for privately) than there are cops.
85% of the firefighters in the country belong to volunteer fire departments.
Mail is a government monopoly, but the volume of email far exceeds (by
several magnitudes) that delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Roads are,
admittedly behind the times, but there are private toll roads.

I think your examples prove the points to which you were responding.


>
>> Face it folks...this country aint so great any more.
>>
>> Welcome to the USSA
>
> Having known people who lived in the USSR and were lucky enough to
> get out, you don't have a clue if you think the injustices you
> imagine you suffer from are anything like on the same scale. Of
> course if it bothers you enough you're always free to leave.

Being "better" than somewhere else is not the goal. That's like saying
having only one leg is better than those who have none.

HeyBub wrote:

> And what about the thousands - or more - who depend on the dividends
> from their insurance company stock to make ends meet? Maybe even to
> buy insurance of their own? You would deprive them of their income by
> mandating a company's policy? How cruel!

Oh, really, so how many people do you know who fall into that category?

>> Sure, so long as you have coverage who gives a crap about the
>> millions who don't, it's not like any of them are your friends or
>> family, right?
>
> I submit that making policy affecting millions based on whether it
> benefits my family or friends is a bad metric. Thank heavens our
> leaders don't make decisions based on their own personal needs but,
> instead, consider the good of the entire country.

Our "leaders" don't make decisions based on their own personal needs? Is
that why umpteen gazallion dollars are poured into their campaign funds
every year by lobbyists, because they make decisions for the benefit of the
entire nation rather than the companies, unions etc. that fund their
re-election? Man, what color is the sky on your planet?

DGDevin wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> There are FAR more security guards (paid for privately) than there
>> are cops.
>
> What percentage of them respond to your home if you call 911? Seriously,
> how much trust would you put in the average mall cop?

Interesting point you raise. In my specific neighborhood we augment the
regular police by the use of community-paid officers. They are paid for by
us, but are certified peace officers. Sort of quasi-private.

I can see uses for the average mall cop - he can draw the goblin's fire
while I sneak around the back and pop him (the goblin, not the cop).


> Years back I lived in a big apartment complex where after a series of
> robberies etc. I looked into the "security" company that was supposed
> to protect the place and learned they had a history of hiring ex-cons
> as guards. No wonder people were getting mugged, cars stolen and so
> on, they had foxes guarding the chickens--so much for private
> security.

Things have changed. Today, ex-cons can't own a gun.

>
>> 85% of the firefighters in the country belong to volunteer
>> fire departments.
>
> And who pays for their equipment etc., and what percentage of the
> population do they protect?

My city, Houston, is ringed by maybe 100 smaller communities within 25 miles
of the city limits. Most of these have volunteer fire departments. The city
of Houston sells outdated equipment to these smaller communities at
rock-bottom prices. (I saw a pumper that cost $100,000 in 1976 sold for
$2000). The men (and women) in the volunteer service swarm over this
equipment and, with a lot of elbow grease and ingenuity, often make the
equipment better than new. The Houston fire department's academy accepts
volunteers from these communities on a space-available basis. In each class
there are usually from two to ten volunteers.

It's not all altruistic on the part of Houston. When the SHTF, the volunteer
departments assist the city.

Story:
I'm sitting at my computer last summer when the power goes off. Well,
phooey! After putzing around for about 15 minutes, I decide to step outside.
On the street in front of my house I found FORTY-TWO pieces of fire fighting
apparatus! It seems the apartment house across the street caught fire. There
were pumpers, ambulances, one of those aerial hose units that can squirt
water into the fifteenth story window, supervisor cars, trucks with ladders
that could reach the angels, a cascade unit, a GIANT bus that looks like one
of those things that takes seniors to the nearby Indian reservation for a
day of gambling with the legend "City of Houston Mobile Command Center"
emblazoned on the side. And cop cars? I think dozens.

Anyway, amongst all this sea of red vehicles and men with raincoats and
funny hats was one regular pumper from a volunteer unit about 15 miles away.
Just in case.

As to the population served by volunteers, it's not great. I'd guess maybe
20-30%. Except for Phoenix. Phoenix has a private fire-fighting company.


>
>> Mail is a government monopoly, but the volume of
>> email far exceeds (by several magnitudes) that delivered by the U.S.
>> Postal Service.
>
> What do you figure UPS or FedEx would charge to deliver a letter to a
> farm house in a rural area? Do you suppose they would do it for less
> than half a buck? Do you think they would continue to service such
> routes without raising prices to far more than the USPS charges?

Well, no. I'm just saying that private enterprise far exceeds the services
of the government mail system. I can imagine a day not too far off when 1st
class mail will be delivered by computer - possibly by a private company.

>
> I think there are things private enterprise does better than
> governement, provided you're willing to see them abandon unprofitable
> areas or charge rates that some people can't afford. I think public
> libraries, for example, are a valuable public service. for one thing
> borrowing that router book I currently have sure wouldn't be free and that
> means some people wouldn't be able to participate.

Not necessarily, service could be mandated, much like auto insurance. As for
libraries, most should be burnt to the ground and the ashes scattered. Want
to hear a Monty Python Cheese Shop story?

I go to my local branch library. "Do you have Encyclopedia Judaica?" I ask.

"No," said the librarian.

"Hmm, how about Marquis Whos Who?"

" 'Fraid not."

"Okay, Cumulative Books In Print, the Congressional Record, the Federal
Register?"

"Uh, no."

But they did have hand puppets, DVDs, video games, art work, toys, and
mass-market historical romances (with a "leave two, take two" sign) and
internet access. There ARE libraries that loan out tools (scaffolding, post
hole diggers, table saws, etc.). Libraries long ago abandoned their
historical brief of being a "repository of knowledge."

As for your router book, you could buy a used one via the internet, get full
use of it and turn around and sell it the same way. I do that a lot. I don't
think, on average, I've ever lost any money.

>
> Sure, but the other side of that coin is trusting that private
> enterprise will always deliver a superior product at a lower cost
> than government has been proven a risky proposition too many times. Maybe
> I'm crazy, but I really don't want the equivalent of Enron or
> AIG running everything if you know what I mean.

Axiom I: Private enterprise WILL always deliver a superior product at a
lower cost.
Axiom II: Private enterprise creates wealth; government activity destroys
wealth.

AIG is the largest insurer in the world and there was never a problem with
their insurance portfolio. We already have experience with government
insurance - it's called Social Security, unemployment, or VA hospitals. As
for Enron, they got in trouble, mainly, by trying to play with the
government-run electrical distribution system in California.

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:33 pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
>> the gate on America.
>
> Unfortunately, it was the preceding President who oiled the gate's
> hinges and put a stronger spring on the closer.
>
>>
>> One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
>> Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than
>> you can do it yourself.
>
> Not totally true. Have you priced paving lately? No individual can
> afford many of the things we insist, rightly, that government carry
> out. It's at the point of deciding what's right for the government to
> do, and what isn't, that people differ.
>

But the government's not interested in doing things cheaply.

I invented a biped that attaches to a shovel handle to keep the shovel in an
upright position. I tried to sell my invention to several local governments
on the basis that my device could cut labor costs - no longer would a work
crew digging a hole have to have a couple of people on the payroll whose
sole purpose was to keep shovels vertical.

No takers.

I concluded that governments weren't interested in saving money.

DejaVoodoo wrote:

>> So in your view people too poor to afford health insurance are just
>> SOL, if they die in the streets--tough luck, not your problem.
>
> That is what charities are for, not government.

Great, devil take the hindmost, a real humane point of view.

> Now your talking. This is what the federal government should be
> spending tax dollars on; Infrastructure and homeland security. I
> don't even believe they should be managing the education system. It
> now cost more to send a child to public school then some private
> school.

So send your kids to private schools, what's stopping you?

> This is exactly the road we are headed down. As our government grows,
> we get closer and closer to socialism. With the gross mismanagement
> of funds, our leaders have proven time and time again that they are
> clueless and incapable of running this country. They have bankrupted
> social security, the FDIC is just about bankrupt, numerous states are
> bankrupt and unable to pay tax refunds, even the federal reserve is
> close to bankrupt. They are now trying to pass a bill to take over
> 401K plans. It was the government's own FHA that lead to the crash of
> the markets.

Hogwash. The govt. played a part, but the unrestrained greed and
recklessness of Wall St. played a bigger part. The govt. didn't force S&P
to rate rotten securities tripe-A, AIG didn't implode because of something
the govt. did but because they moved from insurance to gambling and they
took multiple bets on every turn of a card. I believe in private
enterprise, but *unregulated* private enterprise is a forumula for disaster,
as we have just seen yet again.

> These are the people you trust to manage YOUR money. You
> are a fool if you do. What congress is doing should send a chill up
> your spine. For crying out loud, In the midst of all this economic
> turmoil, congress voted a pay raise for them. Their behavior is
> bordering on criminal

So what else is new? Are you proud of what Congress accomplished with a
Republican majority, do you figure there was less corruption and
incompetence then? Govt. tends to be clumsy and inefficient, but that
doesn't mean *everything* they do should be turned over to private business.
I for one am glad Lehman Bros. didn't run the fire dept., if they had we'd
all be fighting fires with garden hoses and buckets.

Nova wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> The nation's Founders weren't too enthralled with democracy
>> either,that is why the established a Republic. The idea of a pure
>> democracy (as we are seeing today) truly is "the mob" ruling. It is
>> 51% of people who don't pay income taxes voting in politicians who
>> continue to promise to punish the 49% of those who do pay taxes and
>> obtaining more support from some of that 49% by telling *them* that
>> they are really only going after the 5% of wage earners who are now
>> paying 60% of all income taxes. Pure democracy can be likened to
>> two foxes and a chicken deciding on the lunch menu. That is why the
>> Republic outlined in the Constitution was established -- to make
>> sure that no one swing group could control the direction and
>> fortunes of the country. Unfortunately, too many "progressives"
>> going back to at least Woodrow Wilson decided that was too "quaint"
>> and "inefficient" and that the "voices of the people" should be the
>> driving force for all
>> policies. So now we have all these neat "innovations" to the
>> constitution,
>> like the Income Tax -- a direct tax on the citizens of the various
>> states that has now managed to place the federal government pretty
>> much in absolute control of every citizen's life due to the control
>> of how those taxes are spent.
>
> The message below was sent by e-mail to me recently. I believe it
> fits nicely into this thread.
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Catching Wild Pigs
>
> A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in
> the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor
> noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back,
> and stretching as if his back hurt.
>
> The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student
> told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while
> fighting communists in his native country who were trying to
> overthrow his country's government and install a new communist
> government.
> In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a
> strange question. He asked, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”
>
> The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The
> young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a
> suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
> find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are
> used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place
> where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they
> begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
> They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you
> have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The
> pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate
> to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
>
> Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and
> around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to
> eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten
> how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their
> captivity.”
> The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
> happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism
> and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as
> supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco
> subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP),
> welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms
> -- just a little at a time.
>
> Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
> the gate on America.
>
> One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
> Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than
> you can do it yourself.
>

Excellent parable. It also illustrates the different methodologies in
capturing wild pigs. We right-wingers wouldn't go to all the trouble of corn
and fences and time.

We'd just shoot the porkers the first day.

On Apr 6, 1:33=A0pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam
> the gate on America.

Unfortunately, it was the preceding President who oiled the gate's
hinges and put a stronger spring on the closer.

>
> One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
> Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you
> can do it yourself.

Not totally true. Have you priced paving lately? No individual can
afford many of the things we insist, rightly, that government carry
out. It's at the point of deciding what's right for the government to
do, and what isn't, that people differ.

>
> "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough
> to take away everything you have"
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Thomas Jefferson

Yup. But when was the line crossed? Maybe with something as simple,
and old, as the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of the U.S. and
tripling or quadrupling its real needs for government intervention? It
sure isn't a recent phenomenon that government grew beyond reasonable
bounds.

DGDevin wrote:
>
> I can see people who choose to smoke, for example, having to pay
> higher rates. But cutting off health insurance for innocent people
> on the grounds that covering them will reduce the profits of the
> insurance company is barbaric.

And what about the thousands - or more - who depend on the dividends from
their insurance company stock to make ends meet? Maybe even to buy insurance
of their own? You would deprive them of their income by mandating a
company's policy? How cruel!


>
>> Even IF the 40 million are imperiled, a government-run health
>> insurance system to fix the "problem," stands an excellent chance of
>> screwing up the health care delivery system for 260 million. Just to
>> say "everybody's covered."
>>
>> Meh.
>
> Sure, so long as you have coverage who gives a crap about the
> millions who don't, it's not like any of them are your friends or
> family, right?

I submit that making policy affecting millions based on whether it benefits
my family or friends is a bad metric. Thank heavens our leaders don't make
decisions based on their own personal needs but, instead, consider the good
of the entire country.

HeyBub wrote:

> That's a separate issue. Politicians need two things to stay in
> office: votes and money. The money supplied by the "special
> interests" offset the cries of the easily manipulated unwashed masses.
>
> It's a balancing act. Sometimes the mob prevails, sometimes those who
> are most affected win.

"The mob," that's cute, you're really not all that impressed by the whole
democracy thing, are you. That view is usually held by those who assume
that in the good old days they would have been among the patrician class, it
never seems to cross their minds that they might have been piling muck in a
bog with their bare hands while yelling, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

> Lobbyists are good. Do you really want the electorate to decide the
> railway tariff for unrendered yak-fat? Or do you want the railroads
> and the yak wranglers to have input?

I don't want the final decision to rest on how much the yak-fat cartel
contributs to the campaign funds of key legislators, which is often the way
it is now. The banking industry spend three hundred million lobbying for
deregulation in the mid-90s, they got what they wanted and then indulged in
an orgy of greed and incompetence which has put all of us in trouble.
Lobbyists need to be kept on a short leash, and fat chance of either party
ever agreeing to that.

DGDevin wrote:
>
> Our "leaders" don't make decisions based on their own personal needs?
> Is that why umpteen gazallion dollars are poured into their campaign
> funds every year by lobbyists, because they make decisions for the
> benefit of the entire nation rather than the companies, unions etc.
> that fund their re-election? Man, what color is the sky on your
> planet?

That's a separate issue. Politicians need two things to stay in office:
votes and money. The money supplied by the "special interests" offset the
cries of the easily manipulated unwashed masses.

It's a balancing act. Sometimes the mob prevails, sometimes those who are
most affected win.

Lobbyists are good. Do you really want the electorate to decide the railway
tariff for unrendered yak-fat? Or do you want the railroads and the yak
wranglers to have input?

DGDevin wrote:
>
>> Lobbyists are good. Do you really want the electorate to decide the
>> railway tariff for unrendered yak-fat? Or do you want the railroads
>> and the yak wranglers to have input?
>
> I don't want the final decision to rest on how much the yak-fat cartel
> contributs to the campaign funds of key legislators, which is often
> the way it is now. The banking industry spend three hundred million
> lobbying for deregulation in the mid-90s, they got what they wanted
> and then indulged in an orgy of greed and incompetence which has put
> all of us in trouble. Lobbyists need to be kept on a short leash, and
> fat chance of either party ever agreeing to that.

Uh, no. That's not what happened. The banking industry is probably the most
regulated in the country. What happened was a 1995 amendment to the
Community Redevelopment Act that mandated a certain percentage of loans be
made to "disadvantaged" communities. Absence of sufficient loans in these
communities would cause government regulators to not be happy with banks and
morgtage companies.

To meet this goal, banks had to loan money to non-credit worthy people. This
worked as long as housing prices continued to rise. When the balloon payment
came due, the homeowner simply re-financed the appreciated value. This Ponzi
scheme collapsed when everybody who could draw two consecutive breaths owned
a home.

Drive around the most fucked-up neighborhood in your town. In a typical
shopping center you'll see a bodega, a pawn shop, hookers on the corner, and
crack dealers in the alleys. And there, like a gold coin in a pile of dung,
a Washington Mutual, Bank of America, or Wells Fargo branch. Do you think
those banks WANTED to put a store-front in the middle of that crap?

DGDevin wrote:

> Sure, but the other side of that coin is trusting that private enterprise
> will always deliver a superior product at a lower cost than government has
> been proven a risky proposition too many times. Maybe I'm crazy, but I
> really don't want the equivalent of Enron or AIG running everything if you
> know what I mean.
>
>
You have the equivalent of Enron running the federal trust fund system -
that's where Enron learned it's accounting methods.

Nova wrote:
>> From an age based perspective, and the view looking over Attila the
>> Hun's right shoulder, I would shoot those casting the corn/building
>> the fences ... save a damn sight more time and angst.
>>
>>
>
> Didn't you Texans do that in the past with a different brand of sheep
> herders?
>
> http://www.jcs-group.com/oldwest/war/grass.html

Only Texans that have sheep are Aggies.

Brought them back as war brides after the mistaken invasion of New Zealand
(which is a whole 'nother story that had something to do with a muskrat and
a jar of mayonnaise - I never was too clear on the details).

MikeWhy wrote:

>> I can see people who choose to smoke, for example, having to pay
>> higher rates.
>
> Or ride motorcycles. Or jump from perfectly good airplanes. Or SCUBA
> dive. Or ski. Or own firearms. Or are presumed genetically
> predisposed to early failure of some sort. Or don't wear sunscreen.
> Or...

Heh, oddly enough I answer to most of those categories, although I do use
suncreen.

HeyBub wrote:

> There are FAR more security guards (paid for privately) than there
> are cops.

What percentage of them respond to your home if you call 911? Seriously,
how much trust would you put in the average mall cop? Years back I lived in
a big apartment complex where after a series of robberies etc. I looked into
the "security" company that was supposed to protect the place and learned
they had a history of hiring ex-cons as guards. No wonder people were
getting mugged, cars stolen and so on, they had foxes guarding the
chickens--so much for private security.

> 85% of the firefighters in the country belong to volunteer
> fire departments.

And who pays for their equipment etc., and what percentage of the population
do they protect?

> Mail is a government monopoly, but the volume of
> email far exceeds (by several magnitudes) that delivered by the U.S.
> Postal Service.

What do you figure UPS or FedEx would charge to deliver a letter to a farm
house in a rural area? Do you suppose they would do it for less than half a
buck? Do you think they would continue to service such routes without
raising prices to far more than the USPS charges?

I think there are things private enterprise does better than governement,
provided you're willing to see them abandon unprofitable areas or charge
rates that some people can't afford. I think public libraries, for example,
are a valuable public service. I have no doubt what would happen if they
were turned over to private companies, for one thing borrowing that router
book I currently have sure wouldn't be free and that means some people
wouldn't be able to participate. If the response to that is, "Tough shit,
not my problem," well that's a sad way to organize everything in society
IMO.

> Roads are, admittedly behind the times, but there are
> private toll roads.

Yup, a tiny fraction of total mileage.

> I think your examples prove the points to which you were responding.

Hogwash.

> Being "better" than somewhere else is not the goal. That's like saying
> having only one leg is better than those who have none.

Sure, but the other side of that coin is trusting that private enterprise
will always deliver a superior product at a lower cost than government has
been proven a risky proposition too many times. Maybe I'm crazy, but I
really don't want the equivalent of Enron or AIG running everything if you
know what I mean.

DejaVoodoo wrote:

> What else would you like to spend my money on? How about STD
> reasearch. How about field mice in Calafornia. How about private
> jets for princess peloci. How about the killing of babies!

Based on your spelling maybe some of that money needs to go to education.

> Oh yeah - you are already doing that for me. If you want health
> insurance...GET A JOB! If you cannot work, then turn to your family
> or charities for help.

So in your view people too poor to afford health insurance are just SOL, if
they die in the streets--tough luck, not your problem.

> I should be able to dictate where my money
> goes, what charities I give it to...not you, the feds or anyone else.

I'll tell you what, we'll let you stop paying taxes, but you don't get to
drive on public roads anymore, the cops and fire dept. won't come to your
house when you need them, no more mail delivery and so on, you can take care
of everything by yourself. Good luck.

> Face it folks...this country aint so great any more.
>
> Welcome to the USSA

Having known people who lived in the USSR and were lucky enough to get out,
you don't have a clue if you think the injustices you imagine you suffer
from are anything like on the same scale. Of course if it bothers you
enough you're always free to leave.

"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For "CHEAP" substitute the more accurate "affordable."
>
> I can see people who choose to smoke, for example, having to pay higher
> rates.

Or ride motorcycles. Or jump from perfectly good airplanes. Or SCUBA dive.
Or ski. Or own firearms. Or are presumed genetically predisposed to early
failure of some sort. Or don't wear sunscreen. Or...

"DGDevin" wrote:

> Having known people who lived in the USSR and were lucky enough to
> get out, you don't have a clue if you think the injustices you
> imagine you suffer from are anything like on the same scale.

I also knew a lady who was a professional engineer, who walked across
the border carrying her life's possessions in two carpet bags along
with a young son.

Quite a lady.

During the uprising when Boris crawled up on the tank, she uttered one
word, "DRUNK".

Lew