>Yep. It's time for people to reread Atlas Shrugged. Which I'm doing
>now. It reads a lot like current events.

>nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:00:51 -0500, "Gil J" <g...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>...
>>>         Look at this:  1948 Cartoon
>>> http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-fa...

>> I totally agree with the cartoon.  The problem we are having is Reagan
>> srippled the unions when he got away with firing the air traffic
>> controllers
>Not true!  By the very nature of their contracts, they deserved to be
>fired.  Besides, no matter how you slice it, a "union worker" is simply
>another thief with a different MO...

>> and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
>> outsourcing.
>A business doesn't "move to finish" anything in order to do outsourcing.
>They outsource because the cost of doing business with union thieves,
>intrusive regulations, and onerous taxes make making a profit hard to do.

>>  The education business moved into grade inflation so we
>> now have acoutry run by "experts" who hae a piece of paer that says so
>> but they don'tknow what they are doing.
>A pretty spot-on assessment.  However education isn't so much a business as
>it is a government regulated & mandated use of union labor in order to
>inculcate hapless youngsters.  Education will become a business, when
>government is driven out of it and parents are allowed to take their
>children and money to private schools.  Then education will become a
>business.

>> The architects of the
>> Mortgage collapse are a good example.
>True enough.  And now they have the gall to want to take charge of our
>medical system.  Will we foolish voters ever learn???

>>  Then there was the switch of
>> the purpose of a company from creating product to make a profit to
>> maximizing the return for shareholders.
>Not at all true.  A company exists for the benefit of it's owners and
>shareholders.  It exists in order to deliver a product or service at a
>profit.  And sometimes they die because their business model is broken.

>>  The system is broken just
>> like the cartoon says it could happen.
>Somewhat true...

>> In terms of healthcare the system could have fixed itself.
>Not likely.  As long as government continues to meddle in it, NOTHING GOOD
>WILL EVER COME OF ANYTHING THEY DO!  There is not a single, successful,
>government run of getting something done anywhere out there!

>>   Competition is not the answer.
>Competition IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER!  That's what makes us better, leaner,
>faster, and cheaper.  Sitting on our fat, government mandated ass has NEVER
>accomplished a thing!

>>  that i sone
>> of the ism lies.  Sometimes it is good and sometimes the best answer
>> is cooperation.  It all depends on whether your goal is one winner or
>> everybody winning.
>It has been amply demonstrated throughout history that you can never have
>everybody winning!  Only the best can win...and by doing so they always
>carry others along.  But it's unable to carry those that can't, don't, or
>won't help themselves.  There will always be those that can't compete.  In
>an earlier time, they would have been the ones that became the meal for a
>Saber-toothed tiger.

>Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of leadership...and
>you can see where that's gotten us...

>L8r all,
>Dusty

>> nothermark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:12:59 -0800, "Frank Howell"
>>> <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:

>>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:06:17 -0800, "Frank Howell"
>>>>> <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:26 -0700, rvfulltime
>>>>>>> <rvfulltime.nosp...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> Socialism =
>>>>>>>> Hitler
>>>>>>>> Stalin
>>>>>>>> Mao
>>>>>>>> Pol Pot
>>>>>>>> Kim
>>>>>>>> Castro

>>>>>>> Problem is the Conservatives are using the term as a pejorative
>>>>>>> for everything they do not like.  The issue is seldom really
>>>>>>> socialism.

>>>>>> You gots to be kidd'n! Would collectivism sound better?

>>>>> Depends what we are talking about.  Insurance is by it's nature
>>>>> collectivist.  Many folks put their money in and hope the pot will
>>>>> be big enough to cover the expenses of the few who need to take
>>>>> money out.  Not "getting your money's worth" indicates you did not
>>>>> suffer from the misfortune you are insuring against.  Most of us
>>>>> are happy not to have the misfortune.  A few whine about anything.

>>>> I think you missed the mark. :-)

>>>> collectivism:
>>>> The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of
>>>> production and distribution by the people collectively, usually
>>>> under the supervision of a government.

>>>>> Collectivism at the insurance level does not create a socialist
>>>>> government or demand a dictator to control it.  Trying to tie
>>>>> known dictators to a squabble over who holds the pot does not
>>>>> promote a meaningful conversation over the issue.  In the case of
>>>>> US Health insurance there is a lot of room fo rmeaningfull
>>>>> discussion so name calling indicates folks with nothing usefull
>>>>> to say.

>>>> Insurance companies do not even remotley operate under any form of
>>>> collectivisim. The majority are corporations, which last time I
>>>> remember are private and not controlled by the "people."

>>> Collective in what they do, not collectivism by the political
>>> definition.

>>>>> FWIW - it occured to me that the lottery is also collectivist
>>>>> similar to insurance.  I wonder hom many folks are whining about
>>>>> Obama's socialised medicine while standing line to get their
>>>>> ticket.  ;-)

>>>> No force is is used in running the lottery, it's participates do so
>>>> on a mutually voluntary basis. You can't say the same thing about
>>>> Pelosi's program. The only similarity is that both involve
>>>> government regulation.

>>>> -- Frank Howell

>>> Now I know how tightly you want to define collective.  The problem
>>> with the health care mess is not even Pelosi is saying the
>>> government should own the Doctors.  That breaks the definition as
>>> the government would not own the means of production.  Within
>>> limits profit would be a function of how the Doc runs his office.
>>> Therefore it is not collectivism by the accepted definition.

>>> The closest thing anybody is talking about is forcing everybody to
>>> play somehow.  The private plans want it and the single payer folks
>>> want it because they all do not want folks to be able to wait until
>>> they need insurance to buy it.  That is a far cry from either
>>> socialism or collectivism.

>> Ok, then lets remove any sanctions for not getting health insurance,
>> be it private individuls or corporations and replace it with
>> mutually voluntary agreements. This way there is no ambiguity about
>> who owns who and who profits. Transparency I think they call it.

>> The only way profits can be limited, is the use of force as the final
>> arbitrator. With insurance, mandated through the use of force,
>> costing the same for young, old, enfeebled, diseased, healthy,
>> chronically ill, we will all pay more for health insurance in
>> premiums or in taxes as by definition everyone will be covered that
>> wasn't covered before and that money will come from you and me. You
>> can't have your cake and eat it too.

> You are describing the mess we have now.  It is also broken for many
> folks, costing a bundle extra for many more and the most expensive,
> least productive plan in the first world.   That is why folks want to
> change it.

>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:12:59 -0800, "Frank Howell"
>>>> <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:

>>>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:06:17 -0800, "Frank Howell"
>>>>>> <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:26 -0700, rvfulltime
>>>>>>>> <rvfulltime.nosp...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Socialism =
>>>>>>>>> Hitler
>>>>>>>>> Stalin
>>>>>>>>> Mao
>>>>>>>>> Pol Pot
>>>>>>>>> Kim
>>>>>>>>> Castro

>>>>>>>> Problem is the Conservatives are using the term as a pejorative
>>>>>>>> for everything they do not like.  The issue is seldom really
>>>>>>>> socialism.
>>>>>>> You gots to be kidd'n! Would collectivism sound better?

>>>>>> Depends what we are talking about.  Insurance is by it's nature
>>>>>> collectivist.  Many folks put their money in and hope the pot will
>>>>>> be big enough to cover the expenses of the few who need to take
>>>>>> money out.  Not "getting your money's worth" indicates you did not
>>>>>> suffer from the misfortune you are insuring against.  Most of us
>>>>>> are happy not to have the misfortune.  A few whine about anything.
>>>>> I think you missed the mark. :-)

>>>>> collectivism:
>>>>> The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of
>>>>> production and distribution by the people collectively, usually
>>>>> under the supervision of a government.

>>>>>> Collectivism at the insurance level does not create a socialist
>>>>>> government or demand a dictator to control it.  Trying to tie
>>>>>> known dictators to a squabble over who holds the pot does not
>>>>>> promote a meaningful conversation over the issue.  In the case of
>>>>>> US Health insurance there is a lot of room fo rmeaningfull
>>>>>> discussion so name calling indicates folks with nothing usefull
>>>>>> to say.
>>>>> Insurance companies do not even remotley operate under any form of
>>>>> collectivisim. The majority are corporations, which last time I
>>>>> remember are private and not controlled by the "people."
>>>> Collective in what they do, not collectivism by the political
>>>> definition.

>>>>>> FWIW - it occured to me that the lottery is also collectivist
>>>>>> similar to insurance.  I wonder hom many folks are whining about
>>>>>> Obama's socialised medicine while standing line to get their
>>>>>> ticket.  ;-)
>>>>> No force is is used in running the lottery, it's participates do so
>>>>> on a mutually voluntary basis. You can't say the same thing about
>>>>> Pelosi's program. The only similarity is that both involve
>>>>> government regulation.

>>>>> -- Frank Howell

>>>> Now I know how tightly you want to define collective.  The problem
>>>> with the health care mess is not even Pelosi is saying the
>>>> government should own the Doctors.  That breaks the definition as
>>>> the government would not own the means of production.  Within
>>>> limits profit would be a function of how the Doc runs his office.
>>>> Therefore it is not collectivism by the accepted definition.

>>>> The closest thing anybody is talking about is forcing everybody to
>>>> play somehow.  The private plans want it and the single payer folks
>>>> want it because they all do not want folks to be able to wait until
>>>> they need insurance to buy it.  That is a far cry from either
>>>> socialism or collectivism.
>>> Ok, then lets remove any sanctions for not getting health insurance,
>>> be it private individuls or corporations and replace it with
>>> mutually voluntary agreements. This way there is no ambiguity about
>>> who owns who and who profits. Transparency I think they call it.

>>> The only way profits can be limited, is the use of force as the final
>>> arbitrator. With insurance, mandated through the use of force,
>>> costing the same for young, old, enfeebled, diseased, healthy,
>>> chronically ill, we will all pay more for health insurance in
>>> premiums or in taxes as by definition everyone will be covered that
>>> wasn't covered before and that money will come from you and me. You
>>> can't have your cake and eat it too.
>> You are describing the mess we have now.  It is also broken for many
>> folks, costing a bundle extra for many more and the most expensive,
>> least productive plan in the first world.   That is why folks want to
>> change it.

> In 1965 the estimated cost of Medicare part A for 1990 was $9 bil. In 1990
> the actual cost was $67 bil.

> The Midicaid special hospital subisdy was estimated in 1987 to cost $100mil.
> The actual cost in 1992 was $11bil.

> Anyone who believes any politician's BS on costs, be they Democrat or
> Republican is trying to avoid reality.

> Politicians will say anything to get elected.

> My prediction is that no matter what health bill is passed, by the time it
> is scheduled to go in effect, we all will know the awful truth. We are
> bankrupt.

>> nothermark wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:00:51 -0500, "Gil J" <g...@nospam.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>         Look at this:  1948 Cartoon
>>>> http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-fa...
>>> I totally agree with the cartoon.  The problem we are having is
>>> Reagan srippled the unions when he got away with firing the air
>>> traffic controllers
>> Not true!  By the very nature of their contracts, they deserved to be
>> fired.  Besides, no matter how you slice it, a "union worker" is
>> simply another thief with a different MO...

>>> and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
>>> outsourcing.
>> A business doesn't "move to finish" anything in order to do
>> outsourcing. They outsource because the cost of doing business with
>> union thieves, intrusive regulations, and onerous taxes make making
>> a profit hard to do.
>>>  The education business moved into grade inflation so we
>>> now have acoutry run by "experts" who hae a piece of paer that says
>>> so but they don'tknow what they are doing.
>> A pretty spot-on assessment.  However education isn't so much a
>> business as it is a government regulated & mandated use of union
>> labor in order to inculcate hapless youngsters.  Education will
>> become a business, when government is driven out of it and parents
>> are allowed to take their children and money to private schools. Then
>> education will become a business.

>>> The architects of the
>>> Mortgage collapse are a good example.
>> True enough.  And now they have the gall to want to take charge of
>> our medical system.  Will we foolish voters ever learn???

>>>  Then there was the switch of
>>> the purpose of a company from creating product to make a profit to
>>> maximizing the return for shareholders.
>> Not at all true.  A company exists for the benefit of it's owners and
>> shareholders.  It exists in order to deliver a product or service at
>> a profit.  And sometimes they die because their business model is
>> broken.
>>>  The system is broken just
>>> like the cartoon says it could happen.
>> Somewhat true...

>>> In terms of healthcare the system could have fixed itself.
>> Not likely.  As long as government continues to meddle in it,
>> NOTHING GOOD WILL EVER COME OF ANYTHING THEY DO!  There is not a
>> single, successful, government run of getting something done
>> anywhere out there!
>>> They know
>>> how as there are examples.  There is no incentive to do that short
>>> of government intervention.
>> Utter rubbish!  Government IS NEVER THE ANSWER; it is ALWAYS the
>> problem!
>>>   Competition is not the answer.
>> Competition IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER!  That's what makes us better,
>> leaner, faster, and cheaper.  Sitting on our fat, government
>> mandated ass has NEVER accomplished a thing!

>>>  that i sone
>>> of the ism lies.  Sometimes it is good and sometimes the best answer
>>> is cooperation.  It all depends on whether your goal is one winner
>>> or everybody winning.
>> It has been amply demonstrated throughout history that you can never
>> have everybody winning!  Only the best can win...and by doing so
>> they always carry others along.  But it's unable to carry those that
>> can't, don't, or won't help themselves.  There will always be those
>> that can't compete.  In an earlier time, they would have been the
>> ones that became the meal for a Saber-toothed tiger.

>> Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of
>> leadership...and you can see where that's gotten us...

> Yep. It's time for people to reread Atlas Shrugged. Which I'm doing
> now. It reads a lot like current events.

>>You've missed the mark my friend,

>>nothermark wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:00:51 -0500, "Gil J" <g...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>...
>>>>         Look at this:  1948 Cartoon
>>>> http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-fa...

>>> I totally agree with the cartoon.  The problem we are having is Reagan
>>> srippled the unions when he got away with firing the air traffic
>>> controllers
>>Not true!  By the very nature of their contracts, they deserved to be
>>fired.  Besides, no matter how you slice it, a "union worker" is simply
>>another thief with a different MO...

>And a business owner is a slave driver by another name.

>Truth is there is a lot of room for both sides to throw mud.  OTOH the
>unions moved the bottom of the wage pool up lettig you ride on top of
>them.  Without them you would be worth a lot less.

>>> and big manufacturing moved to finish the job with
>>> outsourcing.
>>A business doesn't "move to finish" anything in order to do outsourcing.
>>They outsource because the cost of doing business with union thieves,
>>intrusive regulations, and onerous taxes make making a profit hard to do.

>Let me see, the workers want safe work places and the people want
>clean air and water and everybody wants services that somebody has to
>pay for... Oh, but that is somebody else that should pay those taxes.

>>>  The education business moved into grade inflation so we
>>> now have acoutry run by "experts" who hae a piece of paer that says so
>>> but they don'tknow what they are doing.
>>A pretty spot-on assessment.  However education isn't so much a business as
>>it is a government regulated & mandated use of union labor in order to
>>inculcate hapless youngsters.  Education will become a business, when
>>government is driven out of it and parents are allowed to take their
>>children and money to private schools.  Then education will become a
>>business.

>Education is a business.  The higher the education level the more it is
>a business.  That is why we get grade inflation and social promotion
>and a host of other problems.  

>If you really want to have fun tell a group of educators that college
>has become so important in our lives that 4 years of college should be
>rolled into the public school system.  

>>> The architects of the
>>> Mortgage collapse are a good example.
>>True enough.  And now they have the gall to want to take charge of our
>>medical system.  Will we foolish voters ever learn???

>Private industry blew up the mortgage system.  They paid the
>government to facilitate it but it was done by private industry.  

>>>  Then there was the switch of
>>> the purpose of a company from creating product to make a profit to
>>> maximizing the return for shareholders.
>>Not at all true.  A company exists for the benefit of it's owners and
>>shareholders.  It exists in order to deliver a product or service at a
>>profit.  And sometimes they die because their business model is broken.

>Warren Buffet and you would disagree.  I wonder if Carl will offer his
>insight.

>>>  The system is broken just
>>> like the cartoon says it could happen.
>>Somewhat true...

>>> In terms of healthcare the system could have fixed itself.
>>Not likely.  As long as government continues to meddle in it, NOTHING GOOD
>>WILL EVER COME OF ANYTHING THEY DO!  There is not a single, successful,
>>government run of getting something done anywhere out there!

>The do mail better than Fedex, healthcare under medicare is a model of
>efficiency, do you want private police and fire departments?  There is
>a long list.  The government provides what the voters support.

>>>They know
>>> how as there are examples.  There is no incentive to do that short of
>>> government intervention.
>>Utter rubbish!  Government IS NEVER THE ANSWER; it is ALWAYS the problem!

>>>   Competition is not the answer.
>>Competition IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER!  That's what makes us better, leaner,
>>faster, and cheaper.  Sitting on our fat, government mandated ass has NEVER
>>accomplished a thing!

>More Koolaide

>>>  that i sone
>>> of the ism lies.  Sometimes it is good and sometimes the best answer
>>> is cooperation.  It all depends on whether your goal is one winner or
>>> everybody winning.
>>It has been amply demonstrated throughout history that you can never have
>>everybody winning!  Only the best can win...and by doing so they always
>>carry others along.  But it's unable to carry those that can't, don't, or
>>won't help themselves.  There will always be those that can't compete.  In
>>an earlier time, they would have been the ones that became the meal for a
>>Saber-toothed tiger.

>>Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of leadership...and
>>you can see where that's gotten us...

>>L8r all,
>>Dusty

>Yeah, my top level management would qualify.  All that education and
>not a clue.

>;-)  

> And a business owner is a slave driver by another name.

> Let me see, the workers want safe work places and the people want

> Private industry blew up the mortgage system.  They paid the

> More Koolaide

>> Sadly, today, we coddle and promote them into positions of
>> leadership...and you can see where that's gotten us...
...
> Yeah, my top level management would qualify.  All that education and
> not a clue.