The end is in sight

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

The point you're missing is that just as it makes economic sense to
make fire brigades a public utility, it makes economic sense to make
healthcare a public utility as well. That's how it's done in a bunch
of other first world countries, & there's no reason to believe that it
wouldn't work just as well in the USA. You guys manage to make your
fire brigades work okay, right? Then why couldn't you do the same with
health care?

There are really two issues in play here.

First, there's no evidence that giving our particular drunks,
swindlers, pederasts and mountebanks^H^H^H^H^H^H...^H^HCongress
more control of health care will result in anything other than
squandering the money. That's what they've done with every
other such public trust so far.

And--as a second caution--by other countries' standards our
government already has plenty enough money to fund all of
health care if they but used it well, yet they only manage
to cover a small part of the population. Clearly, they're
colossally wasteful, inefficient, and horrible already.
That performance hardly recommends them for hire for the
bigger job.

So, on several fronts, they've already proven themselves to
be spendthrifts, untrustworthy, incompetent managers, and
poor stewards of the taxpayer's money. We've not reason to
think this latest undertaking would be any different.

Secondly, neither I nor anyone I know have any qualms with the
notion of individuals pitching in for a common good, "common
good" meaning something that benefits everyone more or less
equally.

However, most freedom-loving productive people have a huge
problem with using these same words and pretexts to take
a hard-working man's money, and redistribute it to slackers
who have not earned it.

/That/ is the "socialism" that is rampant in our country, the
"socialism" we resist and decry.

Okay, I'm not arguing with any of that, because I'm not a US citizen &
I'm not in a position to know about it all. The bit I can't figure out
is that the US is not, in general, a dumb country, but it seems to be
incapable of figuring out how to spend its money wisely, which is
something that many other first-world countries seem to be able to do. I
find it hard to believe that it's purely due to the quality of your
politicians, because as far as I can tell, our politicians are just as
good at being money-grubbing, pork-barreling, greedy arseholes as yours are.
What is it that I'm missing here?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

By your figures our government spends as much on healthcare as yours
as a percentage of GDP, so that makes us as socialist as you, or more.
Bang-up job they're doing with it too, right?

You obviously didn't read the figures right or are obfuscating. US
total spending on
healthcare is at least 16% of GDP as opposed to 8% in the UK.

Graham


I've posted this point what, four times already?
I'll make it as clear as I possibly can:


a) You've said the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare.
b) The comprehensive reference "Health, United States" says
government pays half of all healthcare costs in the US.

c) Half of 16% = 8% of GDP that is paid by the government.
d) The rest is private.

So, what percentage is private?

e) Well, if you had 16 marbles, and Billy took away
8, how many would you have left? That's right, 8!


Let's check our math:
.----------------------.
| Government 8% |
| Private + 8% |
| ----- |
| TOTAL 16% of GDP |
'----------------------'


f) Now, you say that your system only spends 8% of GDP.
g) Our government spends 8% too.

h) That means our government and your government both pay 8% of GDP
for healthcare.

i) 8% = 8%.

Does that make it clear?

Absolutely, & believe it or not, I don't think anyone's arguing that point.
The point that's being argued is that in other countries, that 8% pays
for *everyone*, & that nobody has to pay any private cover.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a
North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is
held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom,
Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas
in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP,
MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were
less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather
difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.

So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.

If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them,
but they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them.
To figure out why, just look at a map.


That explains the US' trade with China (& Europe) nicely.

So?

And
Mexico's prosperity as well. Not.

What the hell does Mexico export?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

flipper wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:05:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.
So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.
If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.

Might make it more difficult but I'm sure you've heard of ships and
airplanes and I suspect you've also heard of the difficulty U.S.
business has in competing with Chinese goods despite them being on the
other side of a bigger ocean.

That's example of of *massive* differences in the cost of production. If
Mexico could achieve the same differential, China would be screwed.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
It's always a matter of degree.

So, tell me why you have socialised Fire Brigades, Comrade!
Do you not worry that undeserving members of the proletariat will catch
fire?


Do you worry that another volunteer fireman will start a huge fire in
Australia, like the recent ones.

Oh please. Does your country never get firebugs joining the fire-brigade?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

flipper wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:08:07 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:21 +0200, "TheM" <DontNeedSpam@test.com
wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:NJYLl.4570$b11.2109@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h1FLl.2352$fy.1574@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
We give you a list and you hand-pick the only one that might not fully qualify
and flatly forget about all the others...

M
Well, you supplied one-liners, & I have to do the research & analysis.
You didn't provide facts or reasons why you think these countries'
socialism is a boon--self-supporting or accretive--rather than a burden to them.

So, your unstated logic and rationale aren't clear to me, and, I'm
allowed to sleep, aren't I?

Perusing Sweden's figures, I s'pose my query has to be refined.

Obviously the productive segment of any country can provide a living
for a certain number of non-workers. And all countries do that.

So it's a question of degree, and who bears the burden, and whether
and how much of this is a good thing. And it's a question of at
what level it finally breaks society's back, when the productive
find productivity is no longer worth their while and either flee,
outsource, or become slackers themselves.

And there's a question of mechanism and freedom: whether and what
the State should dictate and control, and what shall be left of
their own lives for the People to control and decide.

I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?

Cheers,
James Arthur
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.
To be fair about it you need to say 'some' Americans because there are
others who seem rather fond of 'socialism' and there's a fair number
of them in government right now.

I find it surprising you find it ridiculous because you're talking
about core, fundamental, principles of government. Would you be so
cavalier about mangling a few Bill of Rights principles?


Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
You'd have to define what you mean by 'subsidizing' and how 'necessity
is determined.

Do you call building roads a 'subsidy'? Because that doesn't take from
one and give to another based on class or status. It's of mutual
benefit.

The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.
I think you may have just explained why those who oppose socialism do
so with such zeal. Because you've explained that, once started, it
becomes a, ho hum, 'matter of degree', no big deal.
It's always a matter of degree.

No it's not.


So, tell me why you have socialised Fire Brigades, Comrade!

Didn't.

Oh, so your fire-brigades aren't publicly funded?

Do you not worry that undeserving members of the proletariat will catch
fire?

I worry about anyone 'catching fire'. Class has nothing to do with it.

So you agree that *everyone* is entitled to have house-fires put out?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

flipper wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:11:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:41:15 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held
by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.
According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".
That's true.
Thank you.

"Socialism" covers a range of theories with actual "ownership" of the
means of production being the most extreme case.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.
You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?
Are you going to address any of the points I was trying to make?

You need to pay more attention to indentations.

I'll ask you again: Do you think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects
Social Security in their old age?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Jim Yanik wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in
news:QRiMl.2828$fy.2429@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Bob Larter wrote:

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

If the government has control of the means of production,that's no
different than outright ownership.
The end result is that gov't is running them.

(and the gov't doesn't care about stockholders;there goes our investments)

But,I note that Obama forced some companies to change their "preferred"
stock the gov't bought to "common" stock,so government DOES own those
companies.
"Preferred" stock cannot vote,while "common" stock can vote,thus control.

Or one could say Obama is adopting Fascism.(Liberal Fascism??) B-)

I'm failing to understand what this has to do with universal health
coverage.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 10:02:09 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Except that I'm talking about countries where the government (ie; the
taxpayer) funds 100% (or close to it) of health care cost, & does it for
half the total price that you pay in the USA. And I seriously doubt that
our politicians & public servants are any better than yours.

Well, of course socialism works in countries where people prefer the
illusion of security to the power to direct one's own life.

In America, we're supposed to be Human Beings, not herds of obedient
servants.

If you want to be taken seriously, argue the facts, not the ideology.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 10:04:51 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 18:38:33 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
...
CAUSED by government overregulation - it interferes with the natural
"invisible hand" of the Free Market, which naturally has negative
feedback.
Rubbish. Market bubbles are a perfect example of positive feedback
occurring in the Free Market, & when they collapse, everyone suffers
to some degree.
In a command-and-control economy EVERYONE suffers to a GREATER degree.
That's a bumper sticker, not an argument.

I'm sorry that sometimes the truth is so clear and obvious that it can
be expressed with such clarity and conciseness.

Not like masterful speechifying, which Brother Barack seems to be so
_damnably_ good at! ;-)

He's almost as good of a snake oil salesman as Brother Al - the kind of
guy who, when you shake his hand, you want to count your fingers.

That's all very well, but you're still arguing ideology, not the facts.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 10:07:05 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 03:44:40 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Nobody wants cradle-to-grave nannying, but there does seem to be an
argument for damping down the consequences of the obvious defects in
the way our minds are constructed, including boom and bust cycles in
the economy.

Hah - when Nu-Labour came to power in the UK, Gordon Brown, then
Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to end 'boom-bust' ! Oops, the
'free market' slipped through his fingers and did it anyway.

Imagine walking up to a working PID controller, and want to change its
output by sticking a signal in there somewhere among a bunch of
different nodes - if you don't pick _exactly_ the right node, it goes
wild!
If it was working, you wouldn't be getting boom/bust cycles. Working PID
controllers don't oscillate.

Yeah, exactly. When it's working, you don't get boom-bust cycles. But if
you want to _CHANGE_ its output to some result other than its natural
equilibrium point, and being the big high-horse ivory-tower know-it-all
that you are, you just stick a signal in, say, the output stage, and say,
"for now and henceforth this will be the output" while ignoring the whole
rest of the circuit that wants to reestablich its equilibrium state. THAT
is what causes the boom-bust cycles.

Is this too advanced of a concept for you?

Hardly, but I'm sorry, I disagree with you completely.

That's what happens in a command-and-control economy.
That's true of the USSR, but I don't anyone here is advocating that sort
of government as an ideal.

THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS, YOU NINCOMPOOP!!!!!!!!!

And its sympathizers, of course.

Well, yeah, obviously.

Obama is really bipartisan - he's embraced the worst of the Neocon
platform and kept it in place (homeland security, strip-searches at the
airports, wiretapping, tortore of putative "enemies", the assault on the
Middle east); and added a huge steaming pile of socialism on top.

Don't get me started on the whole justifying torture thing.

Maybe it's time for the sane people in America to clue up and finally
realize that the real answer is Freedom, it's always been Freedom, and it
will forever be Freedom.

This is merely the answer, of course - the actual implementation will
depend on the cluing up of millions of people to the fact that Freedom is
better than Slavery.

I guess if you've never been locked up in an iron cage, you just can't
appreciate the power to walk out your front door any time of day or night.

("Oh, if you were in prison, you _must_ have been a criminal!)

Is that as far as your intellect can reach?

I did time for failure to pay corruption money to the Insurance Co. lobby.

Well, I actually have been locked up, not that it's any of your business.

first-hand anecdote
I got rear-ended at the "Yield" sign at the top of an exit ramp - I was
waiting for a clear spot in traffic, which is what "yield" means. I got
rear-ended, and there was reportable damage. I was the victim, the
injured party, in a crash that was so clearly his fault that even the cop
on the spot put it in his report.

But I didn't have insurance. But why should _I_ need insurance? I was just
SITTING there! How does it benefit society to extract hundreds of dollars
from me to obey some imperial edict, when I was minding my own business,
driving safely almost to a fault, and some negligent weinerhead came up
and rear-ended me! IOW, why should the guy who _doesn't cause_ creashes be
required to pay money to those who _do_?

Anyway, at court, some bull dyke judge with PMS wanted to "make an example
of [me]".

I did time for not doing anything intrinsically wrong, or in any way
harmful to anyone, including myself. I did time for not bending over and
letting the Bureaucracy have its way with me.

This pisses me off immensely.

So, next time you say, "It can't happen here", or "It can't happen to me",
you'd better be ready to watch your back.

Of course.

And we need to rescue America from this cancer that's dead set on
destroying Freedom as our Founding Fathers intended it.

I'm failing to see your point here.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:55 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:05:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.
So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.
If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.

Might make it more difficult but I'm sure you've heard of ships and
airplanes and I suspect you've also heard of the difficulty U.S.
business has in competing with Chinese goods despite them being on the
other side of a bigger ocean.

That's example of of *massive* differences in the cost of production. If
Mexico could achieve the same differential, China would be screwed.

Mexican costs are maybe 3-5x that of China for labor. But they'd also
have to increase their population by 10:1 or 20:1.

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

By your figures our government spends as much on healthcare as yours
as a percentage of GDP, so that makes us as socialist as you, or more.
Bang-up job they're doing with it too, right?

You obviously didn't read the figures right or are obfuscating. US
total spending on
healthcare is at least 16% of GDP as opposed to 8% in the UK.

Graham


I've posted this point what, four times already?
I'll make it as clear as I possibly can:


a) You've said the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare.
b) The comprehensive reference "Health, United States" says
government pays half of all healthcare costs in the US.

c) Half of 16% = 8% of GDP that is paid by the government.
d) The rest is private.

So, what percentage is private?

e) Well, if you had 16 marbles, and Billy took away
8, how many would you have left? That's right, 8!


Let's check our math:
.----------------------.
| Government 8% |
| Private + 8% |
| ----- |
| TOTAL 16% of GDP |
'----------------------'


f) Now, you say that your system only spends 8% of GDP.
g) Our government spends 8% too.

h) That means our government and your government both pay 8% of GDP
for healthcare.

i) 8% = 8%.

Does that make it clear?

Absolutely, & believe it or not, I don't think anyone's arguing that point.

The point that's being argued is that in other countries, that 8% pays
for *everyone*, & that nobody has to pay any private cover.

I was indeed pointing out that our gov. spends 8%, same as yours, only
ours gets a lot less for their money.

Graham thought I was obfuscating something; the above reiterates who
spends what.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Robert Baer]

Bob Larter wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in
news:wyjMl.2847$fy.1004@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Bob Larter wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

Socialism is not an evil it does some things very well and works
for health
care for most of the developed world. The US pays more and gets
less.
In the US our fire departments work on a "socialism" model. That
is, they
are tax supported and come put out your fires on an as needed basis
without
cost. You don't haggle with them, bargain with them, have some
doofus claim
he can't put out this or that fire nor are they tied to your
employment. This model has served us very well for 250 years. Why
should a sick person
be any different than a sick, on fire house?


That socialism depends on the profitable CAPITALISM to prop it up.
Same as any other gov't service.


Yeah, so what? The same is true of libraries, fire brigades & police
departments. Do you think that it's a bad thing that they're all
supported by taxes, etc?

Well, yes it can be a bad thing that they are supported by (certain)

taxes.
Just look at the towns that are bankrupt due to so many forclosed
mortgages ==> INSUFFICENT TAXES to support what you mentionregarding
services.
Seems that if those that are left (stranded?) in those towns wish to
have (some? all?) services to continue, that a different model is needed...

 

[Robert Baer]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a
North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is
held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom,
Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas
in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP,
MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we
were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather
difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

Without trade actually.


So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.


If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them,
but they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them.
To figure out why, just look at a map.


That explains the US' trade with China (& Europe) nicely.


So?

And

Mexico's prosperity as well. Not.


What the hell does Mexico export?


OIL, for staarters...

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bob Larter wrote:

What the hell does Mexico export?

Duh! They export Mexicans.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

http://www.flickr.com/photos/materrell/

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:55 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:05:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.
So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.
If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.

Might make it more difficult but I'm sure you've heard of ships and
airplanes and I suspect you've also heard of the difficulty U.S.
business has in competing with Chinese goods despite them being on the
other side of a bigger ocean.

That's example of of *massive* differences in the cost of production. If
Mexico could achieve the same differential, China would be screwed.

Mexican costs are maybe 3-5x that of China for labor. But they'd also
have to increase their population by 10:1 or 20:1.

America could help by sending all the illegals back


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

http://www.flickr.com/photos/materrell/

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bob Larter wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
It's always a matter of degree.

So, tell me why you have socialised Fire Brigades, Comrade!
Do you not worry that undeserving members of the proletariat will catch
fire?


Do you worry that another volunteer fireman will start a huge fire in
Australia, like the recent ones.

Oh please. Does your country never get firebugs joining the fire-brigade?

I didn't say we didn't. Still, doesn't it worry you? Lives, homes
and businesses lost from someone who did it not once, but twice. Other
Australians are pissed that there is no registry or background checks
for the volunteers.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

http://www.flickr.com/photos/materrell/

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bob Larter wrote:

Oh, so your fire-brigades aren't publicly funded?

Some are, some are all voluenteer departments who raise their own
money.

Some voluenteer departments get a flat rate stipend if called for
help.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

http://www.flickr.com/photos/materrell/

 

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:30:42 -0600, qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:

Try pre crusades Spain and the Moores, Islamic terrorists

No, not terrorists, they were just seeking to widen their influence. Spain has
adopted much Moorish architecture btw.

By your measure, the USA is currently a terrorist nation.

They murdered Christians in a Christian land. Not just soldiers
either. Yes and No, The US had no business going into Iraq but once
there we have to TRY and get it right. Personally I blame most of the
present problems in the middle east on the alied forces in WWI.
Destroying the central government of the region and then carving out
new borders rather like the Europeans did in Affrica and the Americas.

Western Europe has been carving and recarving middle eastern borders
for almost 500 years. But history gets lost and fades, then only hate
remains.

You're overly optimistic about Western Europe's prowess. They barely
stopped Islamic expansion at the Ottoman Empire, and that didn't fall
apart till WWI.

The Ottaman Empire is a LONG way from most of Europe.

Graham