On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 8:09:39 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:38:57 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Not to be too accurate but if you had any interest in history you would discover that 660.000 REPUBLCANS died to free the slaves. On the other hand, the Democrats ran out of men and murdered 440,000 propagandized farmers into thinking that they were fighting for states rights when in fact they were fighting to allow rich white Democrat continue to keep slaves and count them as 3/4 of a human being.
> >
> > People like you seem to always connect lies, distortions and counterfeit elections with the Republicans when they have never been guilty of such things. The Democrats simply blame every single criminal act they are guilty on upon the other party. Go practice your critical race theory - pure unadulterated racism - on the children of this country.
> Tom. No one on this forum is arguing history. History is facts. Something you, Trump, Republicans love to ignore. The SE of the USA, the confederate states, were Democratic in prior centuries. Yes Lincoln was the first Republican elected President and fought the Civil War to free the slaves. Despite propagandists later claiming it was state rights. I am guessing some, many of the 660k and 440k numbers you list were from any and all political parties. Kind of like in Germany and WW2 where not all the German soldiers were members of the Nazi party and supported it. They were drafted, fought, and died. But today the SE USA is Republican. And they are working hard to reinstate the Jim Crow laws the Democrats instituted back in the late 1800s and throughout the first 60 years of the 1900s. And the Democrats are against this. Each political party has flipped to opposite sides in the past centuries, decades. Republicans are working feverishly to reinstate Democrat slavery and Jim Crow laws. And Democrats are working hard to reinstate Republican Lincoln's goal, dream, of freeing the slaves. Ironic.
>
> History is a recording of the past. Many correct and incorrect events occur in history. We should continue and improve the right things. And not repeat the wrong things. Learn from prior mistakes. Democrats did bad things in the past. They learned over time and now do good things. Republicans did one or two maybe good things in the past. And now they only do bad things. Change. Now I am not giving up hope. Maybe, maybe, maybe in the next century or two, the Republicans will come up with one good thing and do it. Its a very slim possibility, but maybe it will happen. Someone with 100 million to 1 odds of winning a lottery does win.

Continue spouting the lies and distortions of your masters if you like. I actually lived through the 60's and saw what happened. You don't have the IQ of a cobblestone and actually believe the bullshit you're promoting.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:17:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 9:18 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:03:00 AM UTC-5, William Crowell wrote:
> >> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> >> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
> >
> > Who said free? You. Not me. I am well aware there is no free lunch. Health care for citizens is paid for. Higher taxes on individuals and corporations. And the absurd fact that government run controlled health care is amazingly cheaper than individual health insurance. So less money is needed. Funny how that is. Health care is considered a right. Like in the Constitution. Like free speech and freedom of choosing religion and right to own a gun and kill people. Rights. Health care is considered a right in many other countries. Its just not the rich who have freedom of speech or religion or the right to own a gun. Everyone. Like health care in these other countries.. And old people in the USA because of MediCare. Gotta give old people free health care to buy votes.
> >
> > You mention "deserves" health insurance. At other's expense. Do you deserve free speech? Do you deserve freedom of religion? Do you deserve the right to vote? Or should we have income tests for all these rights? If a right is too expensive for you to buy it, then you don't deserve it. I put health care in the rights category. Not a privilege. Owning a Lexus or Trek Madone or Specialized Tarmac is a privilege. Available if you can pay the money. But driving a car or riding a bicycle is closer to a right. No income tests.
> >
> WTF?
>
> State run contract may be _priced_ lower but that';s
> artificial- the cost is much higher due to myriad structural
> inefficiencies. It's the nature of state systems.
>
> Health care is a right? In which Constitution? The Soviet
> 1936 version but not ours. To proclaim it as a right is to
> force providers to provide it - you want doctors
> enslaved/coerced? Doesn't make any sense.
>
> Health, health care services and health insurance are all
> very radically different one from another. To say one
> 'deserves' any is ridiculous. Do I also 'deserve' a Pagani?
> An i-telephone? A custom Calfee? (do I 'deserve' it with
> Super Record EPS too?) Who pays and what is the limit?

Between Lenin and Stalin, 10 million Russians were killed. Do you suppose that is what these people consider socialized medicine? Ten times that number were murdered by Mao. Venezuela and every other country that ever tried socialism had the SAME results. Russell doesn't even understand that he would be the first under the bus as he was cheering on an American Stalin.

On 7/5/2021 1:34 AM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> Singapore did, or does, have a novel system. There you must pay if you
> have the money but if you don't you get free medical care.

I think one can make a logical case for that. A society has good reasons
to try to suppress transmission of infectious diseases. Why force the
indigent to act as a reservoir of infection?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 10:41 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Attack all the good things that Trump was doing
> >
> >
> > I have to admit it Tom. You have stumped me and everyone else with that statement.
> >
> Virtually closed the border and enforced prior disregarded
> statutes, blocked Putin's pipeline and removed obstacles to
> ours, widespread effective deregulation and a reformation of
> tax policy benefiting mostly the lowest two quintiles of
> income which resulted in record low unemployment. MOved our
> embassy to the Israeli Capitol as voted by a dozen
> Congresses. Just a few easy ones I can go on.

While Trump closed the border, he did so based on a well known statute -- as we discussed years ago. Biden has closed the border relying on the same statute. And the Keystone XL is not "our" pipeline. It belongs to a Canadian consortium of institutional investors and would move Alberta tar sands sludge -- which is already moving through the existing Keystone pipeline. And as someone big on "freedom," why should eminent domain be used to benefit a bunch of Canadians. What about those people who don't want a pipeline across their property?

The Trump tax plan -- and particularly the portions that will NOT sunset -- provide far more benefit to wealthy, e.g. the massive reduction in the corporate rate. Whatever reduction you're seeing with the QBID will go away, and even that deduction only benefits businesses. The TCJA also created a massive deficit even before COVID. Unemployment did drop for mixed reasons, some due to tax/stimulus, although the amount is debatable -- and complicated by tariffs an trade issues. https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-review-of-trump-tax-cuts-trade-wars-and-a-spending-boom-51610724602 Yes, he did move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Why should we care about Putin's pipeline any more than he should care about ours?

These are easy things to identify, but not necessarily "good" in the long run -- because Trump had no long-term plan except to roil his base and stimulate an already hot economy. Modest changes could have been made to the corporate rate and permanent changes to individual taxes, e.g. reform of the AMT and NO repeal of the SALT deduction, etc. There are a zillion bi-partisan things that could have been done to make the IRC simpler, more fair and that would have been revenue neutral or even revenue positive. We could have had rationale trade negotiations and not perpetual WWF/Jerry Springer events from Trump and his family. Words really do matter, like you say. The stature of the US went backwards, which hurt needed partnerships. That was totally unnecessary -- except to excite the rabble.

What the US needs it will never get because the socially moderate, fiscally smart Republicans/Democrats (typically) can't get elected -- and Trump is gunning for non-cultists. We'll never have intelligent messaging about national policy since it can't be reduced to a Tweet and won't get liked (because it will involve pea-eating). All messaging has to be an attack, a smack-down, "shade," crush, snub, dis, etc., etc. of the other side.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:36:25 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 1:34 AM, John B. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Singapore did, or does, have a novel system. There you must pay if you
> > have the money but if you don't you get free medical care.
> I think one can make a logical case for that. A society has good reasons
> to try to suppress transmission of infectious diseases. Why force the
> indigent to act as a reservoir of infection?
That must be more of your great knowledge of Medical and Medicaid. Why do you make a habit of continually speaking of things you know nothing about?

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 7/4/2021 10:41 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Attack all the good things that Trump was doing
> > >
> > >
> > > I have to admit it Tom. You have stumped me and everyone else with that statement.
> > >
> > Virtually closed the border and enforced prior disregarded
> > statutes, blocked Putin's pipeline and removed obstacles to
> > ours, widespread effective deregulation and a reformation of
> > tax policy benefiting mostly the lowest two quintiles of
> > income which resulted in record low unemployment. MOved our
> > embassy to the Israeli Capitol as voted by a dozen
> > Congresses. Just a few easy ones I can go on.
> While Trump closed the border, he did so based on a well known statute -- as we discussed years ago. Biden has closed the border relying on the same statute. And the Keystone XL is not "our" pipeline. It belongs to a Canadian consortium of institutional investors and would move Alberta tar sands sludge -- which is already moving through the existing Keystone pipeline. And as someone big on "freedom," why should eminent domain be used to benefit a bunch of Canadians. What about those people who don't want a pipeline across their property?
>
> The Trump tax plan -- and particularly the portions that will NOT sunset -- provide far more benefit to wealthy, e.g. the massive reduction in the corporate rate. Whatever reduction you're seeing with the QBID will go away, and even that deduction only benefits businesses. The TCJA also created a massive deficit even before COVID. Unemployment did drop for mixed reasons, some due to tax/stimulus, although the amount is debatable -- and complicated by tariffs an trade issues. https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-review-of-trump-tax-cuts-trade-wars-and-a-spending-boom-51610724602 Yes, he did move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Why should we care about Putin's pipeline any more than he should care about ours?
>
> These are easy things to identify, but not necessarily "good" in the long run -- because Trump had no long-term plan except to roil his base and stimulate an already hot economy. Modest changes could have been made to the corporate rate and permanent changes to individual taxes, e.g. reform of the AMT and NO repeal of the SALT deduction, etc. There are a zillion bi-partisan things that could have been done to make the IRC simpler, more fair and that would have been revenue neutral or even revenue positive. We could have had rationale trade negotiations and not perpetual WWF/Jerry Springer events from Trump and his family. Words really do matter, like you say. The stature of the US went backwards, which hurt needed partnerships. That was totally unnecessary -- except to excite the rabble.
>
> What the US needs it will never get because the socially moderate, fiscally smart Republicans/Democrats (typically) can't get elected -- and Trump is gunning for non-cultists. We'll never have intelligent messaging about national policy since it can't be reduced to a Tweet and won't get liked (because it will involve pea-eating). All messaging has to be an attack, a smack-down, "shade," crush, snub, dis, etc., etc. of the other side.

Tell us about those marvelous policies and how they are working in Oregon and most especially Portland. That article in Barrons looked like it was written by a 12 year old. The idiotic idea that cutting off the influx of people from Central and South American reduces the tax base is an idea of a moron. Since the eliminations of tax write-offs for the rich did not "sunset", the tax reduction was entirely for the business community and they have ALWAYS grown with a tax reduction. The people that did gain the largest from the tax cuts were the people that should have - working families with two or more children

But I'm sure you can discover some way to deny that.

On 7/5/2021 10:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 9:18 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ...  I put health care in the rights category.  Not a
>> privilege.  Owning a Lexus or Trek Madone or Specialized Tarmac is a
>> privilege.  Available if you can pay the money.  But driving a car or
>> riding a bicycle is closer to a right.  No income tests.
>>
> WTF?
>
> State run contract may be _priced_ lower but that';s artificial- the
> cost is much higher due to myriad structural inefficiencies. It's the
> nature of state systems.

Oh please! Have you never experienced the "myriad structural
inefficiencies" of private insurance paying for health coverage?

I've previously described a months-long battle to get coverage for a
completely routine annual blood test for my wife. That battle ended in a
long three way phone conversation between the insurance flunky, the
billing person at the lab, and me. The billing person was saying "I
submitted it over THREE TIMES! I sent it electronically, I faxed it and
I mailed a hard copy!" The flunky said "There's nothing in the file. We
have no evidence you submitted anything." That battle must have cost
hundreds of dollars in personnel time, not counting my own time. And for
what? They ultimately paid the bill.

We've had medications and procedures refused by insurance - measures our
excellent primary care physician (and friend) judged necessary, but were
disallowed by some flunky or some bit of software. I have friends who
experienced the same. And I've enjoyed an ambulance ride that cost me
well over a hundred dollars AFTER what my insurance paid for. These
aren't examples of structural efficiency or economic efficiency.

The fact is, roughly every aspect of medical treatment costs much more
in the U.S. than it does in other westernized countries. You'd have a
hard time proving our system is more efficient.

> Health care is a right? In which Constitution?

I believe it's clear that Russell was stating his personal opinion. But
I also believe that if you examine the constitutions and court
interpretations of most developed western countries, they've decided
health is care a right.

> To proclaim it as a right is to force providers to
> provide it - you want doctors enslaved/coerced? Doesn't make any sense.

It makes no more sense than those enslaved/coerced construction workers
providing roads for all of us, regardless of income. And enslaved
firemen providing fire protection. Sanitary workers in shackles cleaning
cities' wastewater, while others are providing clean drinking water.
Examples abound. Somehow we put up with those travesties!

> Health, health care services and health insurance are all very radically
> different one from another. To say one 'deserves' any is ridiculous. Do
> I also 'deserve' a Pagani?  An i-telephone? A custom Calfee? (do I
> 'deserve' it with Super Record EPS too?) Who pays and what is the limit?

There has to be a limit, and we can discuss where it should be. But the
U.S. is way, way out of step with most of the world's judgment on
whether health care should be a luxury only some can afford. (And I
don't believe that any of the countries with national health care pass
out high-end bikes and components.)

And again, I fail to see any evidence that our near-unique position is
the correct one. Evidence certainly doesn't show up in the balance sheets.

There are those who want nothing at all from the government. They tend
to live on self-excavated dirt roads rising into the mountains in places
like Idaho. They catch rainwater or dig their own wells, dig their own
outhouses, eat their own chickens and stock up on ammo.

But even they use government provided highways to travel between their
little compounds. Or to travel to protests where they say "Keep the
government out of my Social Security!"

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:50:05 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 7/4/2021 10:41 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> Attack all the good things that Trump was doing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have to admit it Tom. You have stumped me and everyone else with that statement.
> > > >
> > > Virtually closed the border and enforced prior disregarded
> > > statutes, blocked Putin's pipeline and removed obstacles to
> > > ours, widespread effective deregulation and a reformation of
> > > tax policy benefiting mostly the lowest two quintiles of
> > > income which resulted in record low unemployment. MOved our
> > > embassy to the Israeli Capitol as voted by a dozen
> > > Congresses. Just a few easy ones I can go on.
> > While Trump closed the border, he did so based on a well known statute -- as we discussed years ago. Biden has closed the border relying on the same statute. And the Keystone XL is not "our" pipeline. It belongs to a Canadian consortium of institutional investors and would move Alberta tar sands sludge -- which is already moving through the existing Keystone pipeline. And as someone big on "freedom," why should eminent domain be used to benefit a bunch of Canadians. What about those people who don't want a pipeline across their property?
> >
> > The Trump tax plan -- and particularly the portions that will NOT sunset -- provide far more benefit to wealthy, e.g. the massive reduction in the corporate rate. Whatever reduction you're seeing with the QBID will go away, and even that deduction only benefits businesses. The TCJA also created a massive deficit even before COVID. Unemployment did drop for mixed reasons, some due to tax/stimulus, although the amount is debatable -- and complicated by tariffs an trade issues. https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-review-of-trump-tax-cuts-trade-wars-and-a-spending-boom-51610724602 Yes, he did move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Why should we care about Putin's pipeline any more than he should care about ours?
> >
> > These are easy things to identify, but not necessarily "good" in the long run -- because Trump had no long-term plan except to roil his base and stimulate an already hot economy. Modest changes could have been made to the corporate rate and permanent changes to individual taxes, e.g. reform of the AMT and NO repeal of the SALT deduction, etc. There are a zillion bi-partisan things that could have been done to make the IRC simpler, more fair and that would have been revenue neutral or even revenue positive. We could have had rationale trade negotiations and not perpetual WWF/Jerry Springer events from Trump and his family. Words really do matter, like you say. The stature of the US went backwards, which hurt needed partnerships. That was totally unnecessary -- except to excite the rabble.
> >
> > What the US needs it will never get because the socially moderate, fiscally smart Republicans/Democrats (typically) can't get elected -- and Trump is gunning for non-cultists. We'll never have intelligent messaging about national policy since it can't be reduced to a Tweet and won't get liked (because it will involve pea-eating). All messaging has to be an attack, a smack-down, "shade," crush, snub, dis, etc., etc. of the other side.
> Tell us about those marvelous policies and how they are working in Oregon and most especially Portland.

Gee, Tom, last time I checked, Oregon was not setting federal tax policy -- nor was Portland.

That article in Barrons looked like it was written by a 12 year old. The idiotic idea that cutting off the influx of people from Central and South American reduces the tax base is an idea of a moron.

Hmmm. You are aware that all these illegals are supporting your SSI welfare benefit, aren't you. Welfare slags like you should hug and kiss those illegals. https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/

Since the eliminations of tax write-offs for the rich did not "sunset", the tax reduction was entirely for the business community and they have ALWAYS grown with a tax reduction. The people that did gain the largest from the tax cuts were the people that should have - working families with two or more children

Replace "always" with "never" or "sometimes." Do some reading and see where corporate tax savings are going -- typically to shareholders.
>
> But I'm sure you can discover some way to deny that.

You're an idiot who doesn't read anything, so I don't know why I bother responding, but maybe you will read this: https://mwcpa.com/tax/tax-reform-which-changes-are-temporary-vs-permanent/ It uses small words that might sink in. All the "good stuff" for most individuals will sunset.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/5/2021 10:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:35:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2021 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Charity is not compulsion. Words matter, or ought to anyway.
>>>
>>> And nothing is so inefficient corrupt and pernicious as a project
>>> undertaken with someone else's money. Charity is good, we all practice
>>> it to our abilities.
>>>
>>> Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
>> That position puzzles me. I don't see how an unbiased person can
>> conclude that our health care system is better than that of dozens of
>> other countries. There seems to be little doubt it's the most expensive,
>> and its measured outcomes are quite a bit worse than a great many.
>>
>> Based on my experience, we're paying a LOT to insurance company paper
>> pushers who are often far less than competent. Plus, the current scheme
>> actively rewards insurance companies for denial of benefits.
>>
>> One might say there's always a degree of incompetence in any system, but
>> if you think ours is best, please show me the overall numbers.
>
> Inform all of us Frank, WHEN did you ever live in other countries to test out this "socialized medicine" to actually discover its strengths and weaknesses? Why has virtually every advance in medicine come from the USA and its privately funded medicine? I spent my entire life expanding medicine. Saving the weak and powerless regardless of their ability to pay. From a position of absolute ignorance you tell us you cannot understand that. From your postings it is perfectly clear why - you don't even have a passing grasp on reality.

Tom, you have a strange delusion that nobody can know anything without
first hand experience. And yet you expound endlessly on countless topics
with "facts" that you glean only from Fox news and right wing websites.

As it happens, during our European travels, my wife and I did have to
seek medical treatment in three different countries. Nothing major, but
each would have required jumping through complicated hoops if the same
happened while traveling in the U.S. One visit cost me less than $20,
including the medication. Another (for a minor burn) was about the same.
In the first, the wait time was approximately zero. In the second,
perhaps 20 minutes.

The only real complication happened with one ER or clinic visit in
(IIRC) Austria. It was more money and of course I had to pay cash, which
was not a huge expense and not unexpected. They said my insurance should
repay me when I got back home, and they gave me the paperwork.

But when I got back home, my insurance company refused to cover it. They
said I needed the Austrian clinic to give me all the paperwork
translated to English. Of course, the Austrian people had no reason to
comply with that request. I gave up that battle almost immediately. It
was only about $150, IIRC.

I shudder to think what a cash visit to an American ER would have cost.
According to this site, it would likely have been way over $1000.
https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-does-an-er-visit-cost

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/5/2021 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 10:41 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Attack all the good things that Trump was doing
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to admit it Tom. You have stumped me and everyone else with that statement.
>>>
>> Virtually closed the border and enforced prior disregarded
>> statutes, blocked Putin's pipeline and removed obstacles to
>> ours, widespread effective deregulation and a reformation of
>> tax policy benefiting mostly the lowest two quintiles of
>> income which resulted in record low unemployment. MOved our
>> embassy to the Israeli Capitol as voted by a dozen
>> Congresses. Just a few easy ones I can go on.
>
> While Trump closed the border, he did so based on a well known statute -- as we discussed years ago. Biden has closed the border relying on the same statute. And the Keystone XL is not "our" pipeline. It belongs to a Canadian consortium of institutional investors and would move Alberta tar sands sludge -- which is already moving through the existing Keystone pipeline. And as someone big on "freedom," why should eminent domain be used to benefit a bunch of Canadians. What about those people who don't want a pipeline across their property?
>
> The Trump tax plan -- and particularly the portions that will NOT sunset -- provide far more benefit to wealthy, e.g. the massive reduction in the corporate rate. Whatever reduction you're seeing with the QBID will go away, and even that deduction only benefits businesses. The TCJA also created a massive deficit even before COVID. Unemployment did drop for mixed reasons, some due to tax/stimulus, although the amount is debatable -- and complicated by tariffs an trade issues. https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-review-of-trump-tax-cuts-trade-wars-and-a-spending-boom-51610724602 Yes, he did move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Why should we care about Putin's pipeline any more than he should care about ours?
>
> These are easy things to identify, but not necessarily "good" in the long run -- because Trump had no long-term plan except to roil his base and stimulate an already hot economy. Modest changes could have been made to the corporate rate and permanent changes to individual taxes, e.g. reform of the AMT and NO repeal of the SALT deduction, etc. There are a zillion bi-partisan things that could have been done to make the IRC simpler, more fair and that would have been revenue neutral or even revenue positive. We could have had rationale trade negotiations and not perpetual WWF/Jerry Springer events from Trump and his family. Words really do matter, like you say. The stature of the US went backwards, which hurt needed partnerships. That was totally unnecessary -- except to excite the rabble.
>
> What the US needs it will never get because the socially moderate, fiscally smart Republicans/Democrats (typically) can't get elected -- and Trump is gunning for non-cultists. We'll never have intelligent messaging about national policy since it can't be reduced to a Tweet and won't get liked (because it will involve pea-eating). All messaging has to be an attack, a smack-down, "shade," crush, snub, dis, etc., etc. of the other side.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You make a very good point, one I've shared, vociferously,
since Lyndon Goddamned Johnson and that's indefensible
spending. DJT was right up there with those sins.

p.s. not one pipeline. And we'll rue the day these projects
were stymied/blocked. The alternates are more expensive and
a lot more dangerous but they will certainly be pursued.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>As a matter of fact I don't like to insult people.

Thank you for tell me that it's a "fact". Oddly, I continue to see a
steady stream of personal insults in your postings. If you don't like
insulting people, why to you continue to do so?

>But you started it since your memory in these matters runs to the loss of memory when it suits you.

I see that your insults, errors, fabrications, and mistakes are now my
fault. Good to know. As for memory loss, I've forgotten how many
times you changed the subject to avoid explaining or answering
embarrassing questions.

I guess I should point out that it's often difficult to end a
discussion. Failing to reply is often considered a form of memory
fault or conceding the argument. My method is to simply stop posting.
I'm not sure if you have a method, but my observation of your recent
attempt to thread cables through a handlebar seems to indicate that
you don't know when to apply the brakes.

>In person you would shake and act the stinking coward you are. With just one grasp of my right hand that would be the end of you. But why should I when I could just look you in the face and laugh at you.

Is that a threat? You're probably correct that you could beat me in a
fair fight. Old age and illness have not served me well. Winning
would change or prove nothing. You're still a liar and a probably a
fraud.

>I have been successful. My work has saved millions of lives worldwide.

Your politics has probably resulted in the death of an equal number.
Enjoy your success.

>You have played with little more than ham radios.

Besides ham radio, I also have been recently repairing and rebuilding
emergency generators, chain saws, smartphones, commercial radios,
computers, LCD TV's, laser printers, appliances, etc. I haven't done
much with bicycles because the former bicycle riding kids in the
neighborhood have grown and now have cars and motorcycles. So now, I
just loan them tools.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 7/5/2021 11:07 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 10:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 9:18 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> ... I put health care in the rights category. Not a
>>> privilege. Owning a Lexus or Trek Madone or Specialized
>>> Tarmac is a privilege. Available if you can pay the
>>> money. But driving a car or riding a bicycle is closer
>>> to a right. No income tests.
>>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> State run contract may be _priced_ lower but that';s
>> artificial- the cost is much higher due to myriad
>> structural inefficiencies. It's the nature of state systems.
>
> Oh please! Have you never experienced the "myriad structural
> inefficiencies" of private insurance paying for health
> coverage?
>
> I've previously described a months-long battle to get
> coverage for a completely routine annual blood test for my
> wife. That battle ended in a long three way phone
> conversation between the insurance flunky, the billing
> person at the lab, and me. The billing person was saying "I
> submitted it over THREE TIMES! I sent it electronically, I
> faxed it and I mailed a hard copy!" The flunky said "There's
> nothing in the file. We have no evidence you submitted
> anything." That battle must have cost hundreds of dollars in
> personnel time, not counting my own time. And for what? They
> ultimately paid the bill.
>
> We've had medications and procedures refused by insurance -
> measures our excellent primary care physician (and friend)
> judged necessary, but were disallowed by some flunky or some
> bit of software. I have friends who experienced the same.
> And I've enjoyed an ambulance ride that cost me well over a
> hundred dollars AFTER what my insurance paid for. These
> aren't examples of structural efficiency or economic
> efficiency.
>
> The fact is, roughly every aspect of medical treatment costs
> much more in the U.S. than it does in other westernized
> countries. You'd have a hard time proving our system is more
> efficient.
>
>> Health care is a right? In which Constitution?
>
> I believe it's clear that Russell was stating his personal
> opinion. But I also believe that if you examine the
> constitutions and court interpretations of most developed
> western countries, they've decided health is care a right.
>
>> To proclaim it as a right is to force providers to provide
>> it - you want doctors enslaved/coerced? Doesn't make any
>> sense.
>
> It makes no more sense than those enslaved/coerced
> construction workers providing roads for all of us,
> regardless of income. And enslaved firemen providing fire
> protection. Sanitary workers in shackles cleaning cities'
> wastewater, while others are providing clean drinking water.
> Examples abound. Somehow we put up with those travesties!
>
>> Health, health care services and health insurance are all
>> very radically different one from another. To say one
>> 'deserves' any is ridiculous. Do I also 'deserve' a
>> Pagani? Â An i-telephone? A custom Calfee? (do I 'deserve'
>> it with Super Record EPS too?) Who pays and what is the
>> limit?
>
> There has to be a limit, and we can discuss where it should
> be. But the U.S. is way, way out of step with most of the
> world's judgment on whether health care should be a luxury
> only some can afford. (And I don't believe that any of the
> countries with national health care pass out high-end bikes
> and components.)
>
> And again, I fail to see any evidence that our near-unique
> position is the correct one. Evidence certainly doesn't show
> up in the balance sheets.
>
> There are those who want nothing at all from the government.
> They tend to live on self-excavated dirt roads rising into
> the mountains in places like Idaho. They catch rainwater or
> dig their own wells, dig their own outhouses, eat their own
> chickens and stock up on ammo.
>
> But even they use government provided highways to travel
> between their little compounds. Or to travel to protests
> where they say "Keep the government out of my Social Security!"
>
> - Frank Krygowski

You mistake me.

Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs,
ruthlessly so, and ridiculously padded for your price, also
to a ridiculous level.

A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap
to nil but the actual costs are much higher, inherently,
than in a free market.

p.s. Agreed: 'government off my SS welfare' always makes me
laugh aloud.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 10:42:00 AM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As a matter of fact I don't like to insult people.
> Thank you for tell me that it's a "fact". Oddly, I continue to see a
> steady stream of personal insults in your postings. If you don't like
> insulting people, why to you continue to do so?
> >But you started it since your memory in these matters runs to the loss of memory when it suits you.
> I see that your insults, errors, fabrications, and mistakes are now my
> fault. Good to know. As for memory loss, I've forgotten how many
> times you changed the subject to avoid explaining or answering
> embarrassing questions.
>
> I guess I should point out that it's often difficult to end a
> discussion. Failing to reply is often considered a form of memory
> fault or conceding the argument. My method is to simply stop posting.
> I'm not sure if you have a method, but my observation of your recent
> attempt to thread cables through a handlebar seems to indicate that
> you don't know when to apply the brakes.
> >In person you would shake and act the stinking coward you are. With just one grasp of my right hand that would be the end of you. But why should I when I could just look you in the face and laugh at you.
> Is that a threat? You're probably correct that you could beat me in a
> fair fight. Old age and illness have not served me well. Winning
> would change or prove nothing. You're still a liar and a probably a
> fraud.
> >I have been successful. My work has saved millions of lives worldwide.
> Your politics has probably resulted in the death of an equal number.
> Enjoy your success.
> >You have played with little more than ham radios.
> Besides ham radio, I also have been recently repairing and rebuilding
> emergency generators, chain saws, smartphones, commercial radios,
> computers, LCD TV's, laser printers, appliances, etc. I haven't done
> much with bicycles because the former bicycle riding kids in the
> neighborhood have grown and now have cars and motorcycles. So now, I
> just loan them tools.
Well now you admit what your real work is. Thanks for letting us know where all of your engineering expertise stems from.

On 7/5/2021 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs, ruthlessly
> so, and ridiculously padded for your price, also to a ridiculous level.

I'm sure my insurance company works very hard at minimizing its own
costs. I don't see that's a benefit to those needing medical coverage.

> A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap to nil but
> the actual costs are much higher, inherently, than in a free market.

That does not follow. A free market doesn't preclude huge profits by
firms with huge control over the marketplace, with those profits taken
from the pockets of the customers.

All the cost comparisons I've seen have judged the U.S. system to be
much more expensive than those of otherwise comparable countries. Those
arguing in favor of the U.S. medical system seldom, if ever, challenge
those figures. Instead they deflect (as Tom has) into allegations
without data that the alternatives are lower quality.

Yet outcomes seem as good or better with those alternatives. Costs seem
lower. And medical bankruptcies are far less common.

I've never bought into the mythology that "what's good for General
Motors is good for the country" nor that "what's good for Anthem and
Aetna etc. is good for American health care."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/5/2021 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs,
>> ruthlessly so, and ridiculously padded for your price,
>> also to a ridiculous level.
>
> I'm sure my insurance company works very hard at minimizing
> its own costs. I don't see that's a benefit to those needing
> medical coverage.
>
>> A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap
>> to nil but the actual costs are much higher, inherently,
>> than in a free market.
>
> That does not follow. A free market doesn't preclude huge
> profits by firms with huge control over the marketplace,
> with those profits taken from the pockets of the customers.
>
> All the cost comparisons I've seen have judged the U.S.
> system to be much more expensive than those of otherwise
> comparable countries. Those arguing in favor of the U.S.
> medical system seldom, if ever, challenge those figures.
> Instead they deflect (as Tom has) into allegations without
> data that the alternatives are lower quality.
>
> Yet outcomes seem as good or better with those alternatives.
> Costs seem lower. And medical bankruptcies are far less common.
>
> I've never bought into the mythology that "what's good for
> General Motors is good for the country" nor that "what's
> good for Anthem and Aetna etc. is good for American health
> care."
>
>

Frank you jumped between actual expense and billing rate again.

I have three brothers in the medical racket (research,
medical practice and administration) so I know a bit about
this. There is a huge difference between cost of providing
any given medical billing line item and the 'price'- which
can be 'list price but half off for you' or whatever. After
those discounts (every plan, union, agency, regulator etc
requires some discount or another) there's still a margin
exceeding most similarly large companies in other
industries. Efficiency of expense management is not the
same as price efficiency or competition to the end user.

Which is why the mess we have is absolutely laser-focus
efficient about costs and criminally padded for prices.
State run systems charge zip to nil to the end user but have
very high actual costs. This is not news.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:40:54 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 7/5/2021 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >> Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs,
> >> ruthlessly so, and ridiculously padded for your price,
> >> also to a ridiculous level.
> >
> > I'm sure my insurance company works very hard at minimizing
> > its own costs. I don't see that's a benefit to those needing
> > medical coverage.
> >
> >> A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap
> >> to nil but the actual costs are much higher, inherently,
> >> than in a free market.
> >
> > That does not follow. A free market doesn't preclude huge
> > profits by firms with huge control over the marketplace,
> > with those profits taken from the pockets of the customers.
> >
> > All the cost comparisons I've seen have judged the U.S.
> > system to be much more expensive than those of otherwise
> > comparable countries. Those arguing in favor of the U.S.
> > medical system seldom, if ever, challenge those figures.
> > Instead they deflect (as Tom has) into allegations without
> > data that the alternatives are lower quality.
> >
> > Yet outcomes seem as good or better with those alternatives.
> > Costs seem lower. And medical bankruptcies are far less common.
> >
> > I've never bought into the mythology that "what's good for
> > General Motors is good for the country" nor that "what's
> > good for Anthem and Aetna etc. is good for American health
> > care."
> >
> >
> Frank you jumped between actual expense and billing rate again.
>
> I have three brothers in the medical racket (research,
> medical practice and administration) so I know a bit about
> this. There is a huge difference between cost of providing
> any given medical billing line item and the 'price'- which
> can be 'list price but half off for you' or whatever. After
> those discounts (every plan, union, agency, regulator etc
> requires some discount or another) there's still a margin
> exceeding most similarly large companies in other
> industries. Efficiency of expense management is not the
> same as price efficiency or competition to the end user.
>
> Which is why the mess we have is absolutely laser-focus
> efficient about costs and criminally padded for prices.
> State run systems charge zip to nil to the end user but have
> very high actual costs. This is not news.

My medical insurance pays less than half of the billing rate.

On 7/5/2021 3:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/5/2021 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs,
>>> ruthlessly so, and ridiculously padded for your price,
>>> also to a ridiculous level.
>>
>> I'm sure my insurance company works very hard at minimizing
>> its own costs. I don't see that's a benefit to those needing
>> medical coverage.
>>
>>> A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap
>>> to nil but the actual costs are much higher, inherently,
>>> than in a free market.
>>
>> That does not follow. A free market doesn't preclude huge
>> profits by firms with huge control over the marketplace,
>> with those profits taken from the pockets of the customers.
>>
>> All the cost comparisons I've seen have judged the U.S.
>> system to be much more expensive than those of otherwise
>> comparable countries. Those arguing in favor of the U.S.
>> medical system seldom, if ever, challenge those figures.
>> Instead they deflect (as Tom has) into allegations without
>> data that the alternatives are lower quality.
>>
>> Yet outcomes seem as good or better with those alternatives.
>> Costs seem lower. And medical bankruptcies are far less common.
>>
>> I've never bought into the mythology that "what's good for
>> General Motors is good for the country" nor that "what's
>> good for Anthem and Aetna etc. is good for American health
>> care."
>>
>>
>
> Frank you jumped between actual expense and billing rate again.

I understand that what's billed is not what's paid, in general. I assume
that all the data I've seen on this topic takes that into account.

> I have three brothers in the medical racket (research, medical practice
> and administration) so I know a bit about this.  There is a huge
> difference between cost of providing any given medical billing line item
> and the 'price'- which can be 'list price but half off for you' or
> whatever.  After those discounts (every plan, union, agency, regulator
> etc requires some discount or another) there's still a margin exceeding
> most similarly large companies in other industries.  Efficiency of
> expense management is not the same as price efficiency or competition to
> the end user.
>
> Which is why the mess we have is absolutely laser-focus efficient about
> costs and criminally padded for prices. State run systems charge zip to
> nil to the end user but have very high actual costs. This is not news.

Can you give details on how that applies to the data in these articles?

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:45:18 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:40:54 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 7/5/2021 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 7/5/2021 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs,
> > >> ruthlessly so, and ridiculously padded for your price,
> > >> also to a ridiculous level.
> > >
> > > I'm sure my insurance company works very hard at minimizing
> > > its own costs. I don't see that's a benefit to those needing
> > > medical coverage.
> > >
> > >> A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap
> > >> to nil but the actual costs are much higher, inherently,
> > >> than in a free market.
> > >
> > > That does not follow. A free market doesn't preclude huge
> > > profits by firms with huge control over the marketplace,
> > > with those profits taken from the pockets of the customers.
> > >
> > > All the cost comparisons I've seen have judged the U.S.
> > > system to be much more expensive than those of otherwise
> > > comparable countries. Those arguing in favor of the U.S.
> > > medical system seldom, if ever, challenge those figures.
> > > Instead they deflect (as Tom has) into allegations without
> > > data that the alternatives are lower quality.
> > >
> > > Yet outcomes seem as good or better with those alternatives.
> > > Costs seem lower. And medical bankruptcies are far less common.
> > >
> > > I've never bought into the mythology that "what's good for
> > > General Motors is good for the country" nor that "what's
> > > good for Anthem and Aetna etc. is good for American health
> > > care."
> > >
> > >
> > Frank you jumped between actual expense and billing rate again.
> >
> > I have three brothers in the medical racket (research,
> > medical practice and administration) so I know a bit about
> > this. There is a huge difference between cost of providing
> > any given medical billing line item and the 'price'- which
> > can be 'list price but half off for you' or whatever. After
> > those discounts (every plan, union, agency, regulator etc
> > requires some discount or another) there's still a margin
> > exceeding most similarly large companies in other
> > industries. Efficiency of expense management is not the
> > same as price efficiency or competition to the end user.
> >
> > Which is why the mess we have is absolutely laser-focus
> > efficient about costs and criminally padded for prices.
> > State run systems charge zip to nil to the end user but have
> > very high actual costs. This is not news.
> My medical insurance pays less than half of the billing rate.

FYI, your medical insurance is socialized medicine -- Medicare, provided directly by CMS and its processor via Coverage A,B or provided on a capitation basis by a private insurer via Coverage C. All providers are reimbursed at rates set by CMS or the private plan. Government can and does run the largest health plan in the US. The question, then, is whether Medicare is more or less efficient than private insurance. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/

The next question is whether government should be providing medical insurance for all citizens and receiving premium in the form of taxes. You can argue about that . . . which you will.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 3:17:41 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>
[snips merely for bandwidth]
>
> Health care is a right? In which Constitution? The Soviet
> 1936 version but not ours.

As an aside, there are many ways in which the Soviet Constitution of 1936 was a superior document to many others, including the US Constitution. Or it woulda been, if anyone, anyone at all, took it seriously enough to follow it. In practice it was a fig leaf for Stalin's murders and other crimes, for example interpreted as holding 12-year-olds responsible for the political crimes of anyone in their family.

>To proclaim it as a right is to
> force providers to provide it - you want doctors
> enslaved/coerced? Doesn't make any sense.
>
A couple of years ago it came out that British NHS junior doctors staffing A&E departments work up to 110 hours a week. I wouldn't want a doctor who has put in more than 56 hours in a week (that's 8 hours per day with no days off) to work on me, even (or perhaps especially) in an emergency.
..
Andre Jute
Not a wimp, just careful

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 3:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 7/5/2021 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 7/5/2021 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs,
> >>> ruthlessly so, and ridiculously padded for your price,
> >>> also to a ridiculous level.
> >>
> >> I'm sure my insurance company works very hard at minimizing
> >> its own costs. I don't see that's a benefit to those needing
> >> medical coverage.
> >>
> >>> A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap
> >>> to nil but the actual costs are much higher, inherently,
> >>> than in a free market.
> >>
> >> That does not follow. A free market doesn't preclude huge
> >> profits by firms with huge control over the marketplace,
> >> with those profits taken from the pockets of the customers.
> >>
> >> All the cost comparisons I've seen have judged the U.S.
> >> system to be much more expensive than those of otherwise
> >> comparable countries. Those arguing in favor of the U.S.
> >> medical system seldom, if ever, challenge those figures.
> >> Instead they deflect (as Tom has) into allegations without
> >> data that the alternatives are lower quality.
> >>
> >> Yet outcomes seem as good or better with those alternatives.
> >> Costs seem lower. And medical bankruptcies are far less common.
> >>
> >> I've never bought into the mythology that "what's good for
> >> General Motors is good for the country" nor that "what's
> >> good for Anthem and Aetna etc. is good for American health
> >> care."
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Frank you jumped between actual expense and billing rate again.
> I understand that what's billed is not what's paid, in general. I assume
> that all the data I've seen on this topic takes that into account.
> > I have three brothers in the medical racket (research, medical practice
> > and administration) so I know a bit about this. There is a huge
> > difference between cost of providing any given medical billing line item
> > and the 'price'- which can be 'list price but half off for you' or
> > whatever. After those discounts (every plan, union, agency, regulator
> > etc requires some discount or another) there's still a margin exceeding
> > most similarly large companies in other industries. Efficiency of
> > expense management is not the same as price efficiency or competition to
> > the end user.
> >
> > Which is why the mess we have is absolutely laser-focus efficient about
> > costs and criminally padded for prices. State run systems charge zip to
> > nil to the end user but have very high actual costs. This is not news.
> Can you give details on how that applies to the data in these articles?
>
> https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start
>
> https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019

Nothing says "I love to see people die" that Franks comments. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/12/10-advances-changed-medicine.html

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:01:36 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:45:18 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:40:54 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 7/5/2021 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > On 7/5/2021 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Your insurance company is extremely efficient about costs,
> > > >> ruthlessly so, and ridiculously padded for your price,
> > > >> also to a ridiculous level.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure my insurance company works very hard at minimizing
> > > > its own costs. I don't see that's a benefit to those needing
> > > > medical coverage.
> > > >
> > > >> A state monopoly system has an artificial 'price' of cheap
> > > >> to nil but the actual costs are much higher, inherently,
> > > >> than in a free market.
> > > >
> > > > That does not follow. A free market doesn't preclude huge
> > > > profits by firms with huge control over the marketplace,
> > > > with those profits taken from the pockets of the customers.
> > > >
> > > > All the cost comparisons I've seen have judged the U.S.
> > > > system to be much more expensive than those of otherwise
> > > > comparable countries. Those arguing in favor of the U.S.
> > > > medical system seldom, if ever, challenge those figures.
> > > > Instead they deflect (as Tom has) into allegations without
> > > > data that the alternatives are lower quality.
> > > >
> > > > Yet outcomes seem as good or better with those alternatives.
> > > > Costs seem lower. And medical bankruptcies are far less common.
> > > >
> > > > I've never bought into the mythology that "what's good for
> > > > General Motors is good for the country" nor that "what's
> > > > good for Anthem and Aetna etc. is good for American health
> > > > care."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Frank you jumped between actual expense and billing rate again.
> > >
> > > I have three brothers in the medical racket (research,
> > > medical practice and administration) so I know a bit about
> > > this. There is a huge difference between cost of providing
> > > any given medical billing line item and the 'price'- which
> > > can be 'list price but half off for you' or whatever. After
> > > those discounts (every plan, union, agency, regulator etc
> > > requires some discount or another) there's still a margin
> > > exceeding most similarly large companies in other
> > > industries. Efficiency of expense management is not the
> > > same as price efficiency or competition to the end user.
> > >
> > > Which is why the mess we have is absolutely laser-focus
> > > efficient about costs and criminally padded for prices.
> > > State run systems charge zip to nil to the end user but have
> > > very high actual costs. This is not news.
> > My medical insurance pays less than half of the billing rate.
> FYI, your medical insurance is socialized medicine -- Medicare, provided directly by CMS and its processor via Coverage A,B or provided on a capitation basis by a private insurer via Coverage C. All providers are reimbursed at rates set by CMS or the private plan. Government can and does run the largest health plan in the US. The question, then, is whether Medicare is more or less efficient than private insurance. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/
>
> The next question is whether government should be providing medical insurance for all citizens and receiving premium in the form of taxes. You can argue about that . . . which you will.

And here I didn't think you could get your head any further up your ass.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 10:42:00 AM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >You have played with little more than ham radios.

>> Besides ham radio, I also have been recently repairing and rebuilding
>> emergency generators, chain saws, smartphones, commercial radios,
>> computers, LCD TV's, laser printers, appliances, etc. I haven't done
>> much with bicycles because the former bicycle riding kids in the
>> neighborhood have grown and now have cars and motorcycles. So now, I
>> just loan them tools.

>Well now you admit what your real work is. Thanks for letting us know where all of your engineering expertise stems from.

Yep. What do you know about repairing and rebuilding emergency
generators, chain saws, smartphones, commercial radios, computers, LCD
TV's, laser printers, appliances, etc? Probably little or nothing. By
your own logic, you are not entitled to hold an opinion about things
of which you know nothing.

BTW, your two sentence reply is a slight improvement over your usual
drastic change of subject. This time, you selected the least
important point in my rant, and hung your sarcasm on it, ignoring all
the other points I mentioned. No need to change anything. I just
want you to know that I noticed.
<https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Avoiding-the-Issue>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:35:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 7/4/2021 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Charity is not compulsion. Words matter, or ought to anyway.
>> >
>> > And nothing is so inefficient corrupt and pernicious as a project
>> > undertaken with someone else's money. Charity is good, we all practice
>> > it to our abilities.
>> >
>> > Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
>> That position puzzles me. I don't see how an unbiased person can
>> conclude that our health care system is better than that of dozens of
>> other countries. There seems to be little doubt it's the most expensive,
>> and its measured outcomes are quite a bit worse than a great many.
>>
>> Based on my experience, we're paying a LOT to insurance company paper
>> pushers who are often far less than competent. Plus, the current scheme
>> actively rewards insurance companies for denial of benefits.
>>
>> One might say there's always a degree of incompetence in any system, but
>> if you think ours is best, please show me the overall numbers.
>
>Inform all of us Frank, WHEN did you ever live in other countries to test out this "socialized medicine" to actually discover its strengths and weaknesses? Why has virtually every advance in medicine come from the USA and its privately funded medicine? I spent my entire life expanding medicine. Saving the weak and powerless regardless of their ability to pay. From a position of absolute ignorance you tell us you cannot understand that. From your postings it is perfectly clear why - you don't even have a passing grasp on reality.

"virtually every advance in medicine come from the USA"??

You mean like Pasteur being the first to experimentally demonstrate
that disease was caused by microorganisms in the environment rather
than the air itself? Or Ignaz Semmelweis who made doctors wash their
hands and thus reduced "child bed fever" by a significant amount? Or
John Snow who a leader in the development of anaesthesia and medical
hygiene. Or even Robert Koch the discoverer of the specific causative
agents of deadly infectious diseases including tuberculosis, cholera,
and anthrax.

Or maybe you were referring to
https://justlists.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/significant-medical-achievements-and-country-of-origin/
which lists the U.S. as the "inventor" of only 5 of the 30 significant
medical achievements.

Or, maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 07:46:41 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:38:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 4:44 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:03:00 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>> >> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
>> >
>> > Crowell believes that those who never work for anything deserve the just rewards - charity from those who do, no matter how much in need they are. Joe Biden has started running the printing presses overtime and what this causes is massive inflation. People who do not have even enough to pay one penny in taxes now have to pay 30% more for everything. This is a massive tax upon the poor and the sort of thing that Crowell and his likes feel is justified since they aren't anything other than stupid workers.
>> I think Tom just displayed the typical reading comprehension of a high
>> school dropout.
>
>You may believe what you like and you will regardless of any actual evidence. Trump did not cite an insurrection since you don't even know what the definition of that word is. It was FBI agent provocateurs'. Obama achieved more than he every hoped for by injecting politics into every single department of the government. That is something someone as ignorant as you cannot even detect because you are so insipidly biased you can't even tell.
>
>Why don't you tell us more about Rush Limbaugh you moron. You aren't even aware that he died of cancer last year.

Lets see now. Frank states that " I think Tom just displayed the
typical reading comprehension of a high school dropout".

And Tom rebuts this by stating "Why don't you tell us more about Rush
Limbaugh you moron. You aren't even aware that he died of cancer last
year."

It does appear that Frank is correct.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:08:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 5:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > On 7/4/2021 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 7/4/2021 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>>>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they
>> >>>>> propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There
>> >>>>> is no evidence that providing health care to people who
>> >>>>> can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in
>> >>>>> order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those
>> >>>>> who can just barely afford to buy their own health
>> >>>>> insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford
>> >>>>> to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person
>> >>>>> is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is
>> >>>>> a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any
>> >>>>> incentive for people to work and buy their own health
>> >>>>> insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say,
>> >>>>> "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that
>> >>>>> man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay
>> >>>>> for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves"
>> >>>>> health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely
>> >>>>> expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it
>> >>>>> without creating terribly dysfunctional economic
>> >>>>> disincentives.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about
>> >>> Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and
>> >>> "welfare."
>> >>>
>> >>> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for
>> >>> healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low
>> >>> back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would
>> >>> run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the
>> >>> antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure,
>> >>> it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should
>> >>> we as a society pay?  Jesus would do it, but then
>> >>> again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of
>> >>> the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify
>> >>> for the earned income tax credit. Loser.
>> >>>
>> >>> -- Jay Beattie.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Charity is not compulsion. Words matter, or ought to anyway.
>> >>
>> >> And nothing is so inefficient corrupt and pernicious as a
>> >> project undertaken with someone else's money. Charity is
>> >> good, we all practice it to our abilities.
>> >>
>> >> Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
>> >
>> > That position puzzles me. I don't see how an unbiased person
>> > can conclude that our health care system is better than that
>> > of dozens of other countries. There seems to be little doubt
>> > it's the most expensive, and its measured outcomes are quite
>> > a bit worse than a great many.
>> >
>> > Based on my experience, we're paying a LOT to insurance
>> > company paper pushers who are often far less than competent.
>> > Plus, the current scheme actively rewards insurance
>> > companies for denial of benefits.
>> >
>> > One might say there's always a degree of incompetence in any
>> > system, but if you think ours is best, please show me the
>> > overall numbers.
>> >
>> >
>> Defend this dog's breakfast better known as The Medical
>> Billing Industry? Not me.
>>
>> Overregulated with perverse incentives. It's not a 'system'
>> so much as a collection of chiselers exploiting various
>> loopholes of opportunity. That anything useful (aside from
>> billing, at which they excel) actually gets done is a
>> miracle and about as frequent.
>
>This is why I have been pointing out that the medical establishment has made $30 billion off of covid-19 deaths that never occurred. That the CDC paid them off to make those false claims. I finally found the fine print that proved what the CDC did under Fauci, It DID NOT report actual deaths. Instead they wrote a program that assumed that ALL of the normal deaths occurred and that any reported covid-19 deaths were excess deaths. Well as I just pointed out, medical facilities reported EVERYTHING up to and including car accident deaths as covid-19 deaths. When the money if for the taking, why not?
>
>https://dryburgh.com/kary-mullis-pcr-anthony-fauci/

Yup... And you also pointed out that you had a resting pulse of 20 BPM
for two days and then you apparently "arose from the dead" on the 3rd
day with a pulse rate of 59 and started telling tales of 9 year old
female trap shooters (who never existed).
--
Cheers,

John B.