It'll make your blood boil, unless your a lefty

This is what's really going on. You're being screwed blind by a bunch of crooks.

formatting link

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred
Loading thread data ...

You strike me as being as worthless as a father as you are as a human.

Reply to
bitrex

much.

h

ther similar Texan towns on differences in approach - some doctors did more testing which cost more.

cal practices in the more expensive town. The New Yorker's lawyers would ha ve counseled Atul Gawande against suggesting anything like that in a publis hed article.

tors.

The criminal prosecutions took a while to set up, and only happened last ye ar - if I remember rightly. Whether prosecutors in other states got the mes sage, and started looking for similar cases of medical fraud, isn't exactly evident.

The Texas case shows that medical fraud is definitely possible, detectable and can be prosecuted. US medical costs are half-again higher than the rest of the advanced industrial world, so one might suspect that there is quite a bit of fraud going on, but there are also a lot of people around like Ja mes Arthur who don't want to think that American exceptionalism is mainly a bout back-handers and pork barrels.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Of course you would "think" such a thing, because I won't submit to the likes of you and the rest of your totalitarian friends.

Reply to
krw

Paranoid, too.

Good luck to you. bye.

Reply to
bitrex

It's a fact. You have no respect for the Constitution or anyone else but yourself. Typical snowflake.

You may need luck to survive. No, you really need what others have.

Reply to
krw

o be extent that the US is exceptionally dedicated to rejecting any scheme that works if there's a risk that anybody could label them socialist.

nd.

It might have been unique in 1776, though in practice the US constitution w as heavily influenced by the Dutch example - and since it started with only 6% of the population allowed to vote, equally inclined to over-represent t he regent class.

Since then pretty much everybody else has copied the good bits of the US co nstitution (not the executive president or the electoral college) and it's not exceptional any more.

Please refrain from misrepresenting my views on things you don't understand .

Actually, you despise communism, which puts a whole country under the contr ol of the members of the communist party. Socialists thought that this was a bad idea back in 1870, and they were right.

formatting link
onary-vested-him-in

vil.

The US government acts as if it has a fundamental right to every citizens l abour, property and life, any time it thinks there is a war on - and it kep t up conscription long after there were any wars around that threatened the territorial integrity of the USA. The US government still spends about as much on defense as all the next seven nations down the pecking order - 37% of all the spending on "defense" around the world. Most commentators descri be it as welfare for the defense industries.

I'm of the opinion that it makes sense for government to spend some of the money it collects in taxes on health, education and welfare, as an investme nt in a more productive working class - it works for Germany and Scandinavi a, who do happen to have better designed constitutions than the US antique, and use proportional representation to get coalition governments, which ca n get taken down by a single bad decision - unlike the USA where a failure like the election of Trump can't be corrected until he's had four years to exhibit his incompetence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

f.

l
.

n

Not as perverse or under-educated as James Arthur's, who still can't tell t he difference between socialism and communism - a difference which has been obvious to socialists since 1870.

That's not the "entire goal" of the left - it is a political tactic adopted by some left-wing politicians. The inhabitants of Germany and Scandinavia aren't being outraged by left-of-centre politicians - it's right wing polit icians who tell them nonsense about immigrants in the hope of garnering the votes of the gullible.

on

We get the idea that you think that any political organisation which organi ses it's supporters is a bad thing. I'd agree that the Trump team and the T ea Party are bad things, but on the basis of what they organise their suppo rters to campaign for, rather than because they organise them.

If you hadn't been brainwashed out of any contact with reality, you might n otice the inconsistency in your rhetoric.

Whereas the Republican party is nothing but an alliance of the rich, seekin g to maximise the benefits they get from any taxes that are collected, whil e minimising government spending on anybody else to minimise the taxes that they do end up paying.

You seem to have forgotten the bit about being left free to exploit the res t of the population for the cheapest labour they can screw out of them for the lowest wages that will keep them alive.

No more than the right. Since the right has got most of the stuff already, the right is more into keeping what they have than getting the last of the stuff that they haven't already scooped up, but they are just as enthusiast ic about telling the rest of the population how to live - no contraception, no abortions and no recreational drugs beyond alcohol and tobacco (both of which seem to be supplied by businesses that seem to be owned by people wh o support right wing politicians, and wouldn't appreciate any competition i n that market).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

The two states that spend least per head on secondary education - $7000 dollars - Idaho and Utah - both gave Trump roughly twice as many votes as Clinton.

The problem isn't that the people who voted for Trump were poor - the problem is that they were ignorant. Possibly even as ignorant as krw.

It is sociopathic to be so obsessed with taking care of your own family that you will shaft the rest of society so you can pay a little less tax.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

I doubt if bitrex has any totalitarian friends. The communist party did lay some emphasis on the leading role of the communist party, which meant that they were depressingly totalitarian in practice, but the rest of the socia list movement saw that as a bad idea back in 1870, which is an idea that th e rest of the world has come to share (not that krw has noticed).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

At least Phil is an amusing asshole, sometimes. This guy is just tedious.

Reply to
bitrex

Like a re-emergence of E. Reston or other aerosol spread VHF. Or any aerosol spread respiratory infection, especially if bacterial and resistent to antibiotics. Epidemiologists agree it's only a a question of /when/, not /if/ that happens.

The thing is, if you had cared to read actual history instead of the lies that are being spoon-fed to you daily, you'd realize that the reason why European healthcare is universal doesn't have one iota to do with socialism, rather everything to do with the recognition that the having anyone with restricted access to healthcare is an catastrophe waiting to happen in terms of contagious diseases.

Like, it's no coincidence that the places where Hansen's Disease still spreads are areas without universal health care.

Another lesson learned through the time that socialized healthcare has existed is that there is a significant number of conditions that are much cheaper to fix if done at an early stage. See what I'm getting at?

/Teo.

--
teostupiditydor@algonet.se | for you are good and crunchy with 
Remove stupidity to reply  | ketchup.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Teodor V.

However, there is an agreement in place EU-wide which basically means that an EU resident of one country only falling ill in another country only has to pay what a resident of the other EU country has to pay for health care.

Actually, it's becoming increasingly evident that even a state-level healthcare system is too small when it comes to healthcare, that a larger system is necessary to handle things efficiently.

Also, we're not being ruled by our "betters", there are a lot of private actors in the health care field here competing with other private actor and muni/county/state operated outfits. The only difference is the that instead of health insurance, the county or state pays the actors for services rendered.

Residents here pay less for universal healthcare than US residents do for health insurance. And I'm not talking about the co-pay (like $130 max/y for healthcare, $260 max/y for medications), but the portion of taxes which goes to healthcare.

/Teo.

--
teostupiditydor@algonet.se | for you are good and crunchy with 
Remove stupidity to reply  | ketchup.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Teodor V.

"The county is best known for its white sand beaches and emerald green water, where large pods of dolphins swim year-round. These beaches attract hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world each year."

32405 is Panama City. This is the average Panama City resident's daily driver:

I'm sorry, you need a larger health care subsidy, too? Please, take the fillings out of my teeth while you're at it.

Reply to
bitrex

It's a hard life in that resort town to be sure. How do you even survive the tourists?

Reply to
bitrex

t

It's you that is "jumping off the bridge". What you see as "socialised medi cine" works rather better than the weirdly regulated system that you have, and costs two thirds as much per head (or less). There are a bunch of count ries with a bunch of different systems - the UK National Health is the chea pest, but it is a bit Spartan - but they all look and work in fairly simila r ways, and they are all different from (and better than) yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

How about we make a law that says everyone in the country gets the same healthcare as the person who is the worst off? No more employer paid healthcare. No more Obamacare. Everyone pays their own way, but no one gets any healthcare until everyone can afford it?

That should make you happy because you won't be paying to subsidize others' healthcare. It should make the proponents of equal healthcare happy since everyone will receive the same healthcare.

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

I've got an even better idea. How about the law gives everyone the same healthcare that Congress gets? That sounds about as fair as it can possibly be, right?

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

as

ved

ls.

l evil.

formatting link

?Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Jesus never had enough committed supporters to go in for serious violence. Muhammad lived longer and was successful enough that violent proselytising became a practicable option.

and

Not true. Christianity manged to lose most classical learning, and it got i t back via Islam. Algebra is an Arabic word, and we use the Arabic number s ystem - strictly speaking the Hindu-Arabic number system, which was invente d in India.

formatting link

Galileo wouldn't share your opinion about Christian support for modern scie nce - trying to persuade him to revise his views about the structure of the solar system by showing him instruments of torture is a fairly brutal mode of argument.

John Larkin doesn't know much, and a lot of what he thinks he knows seems t o be wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Socialism isn't a church. If it were, the Communists who actually did all the killings that krw and and James Arthur want to pin on socialism were declared a heretics in 1870, and drummed out of the movement. As Mikhail Bakunin pointed out at the time

formatting link

the enthusiasm that Karl Marx expressed for the "leading role of the party" was profoundly undemocratic and predictably dangerous.

You can say what did happen in the past. Not all that many people are being killed at present, and the future is unpredictable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.