On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:19 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:
> “…Just tell me what 'simple attempt' you are referring to here…” - DJ > > In full context, I said: > > “The rest of your rhetoric is mostly unfounded, trite and misses the > point greatly. Ideologically, you project all sorts of things on a > simple attempt at helping citizens reduce their fear about health care > in the USA. The evidence of how this works worldwide is obvious and > shows that we have a lot further to go…regardless of the fears and > polarizing going on. Some of the stuff on TV today harkened back to > the Civil War! Hopefully, rather than looking for fights, we can find > some sort of unity…no, not utopia, for clearly, you don’t want > utopia.” – orn > > I was referring to the actual legislation compared to the numerous > motivations you projected upon it. Compared to your, to me, very > convoluted view of the legislation and its goal(s), the bill *is* > simple. Of course, by itself, it is not that simple. In context, it > was a comparison. > Ok. 2000 pages of simplicity. Got it. > > Do you know how much your insurance company will pay for *any* > procedure? Do you know for sure what they will disallow? Do you know > of any charts showing what sort of ‘protection’ your insurance will > provide for you?...the actual dollars and cents? No, of course not. No > insurance company lets any consumer know how much they consider is > ‘acceptable and normal’ in any particular locality. We have to trust > that the ‘product’ we purchase will be worthwhile. . . *without* > knowing what we are in fact purchasing!!! > My insurance pays 80% of just about everything. Including behavioral health. Plus I get to go to whatever doctor I want to. This is huge. Too many plans are so poor none of the decent doctors take it. I have never been denied coverage for anything so far. Basically anything that would affect my job performance is covered. Breast implants and tummy tucks aren't. If all people had insurance like mine where they were responsible for paying 20% of every service I think healthcare costs would dramatically decline. Premiums as well. The last part of my paragraph points out that “Health Insurance” > companies are the *only* private sector businesses that are protected > from *any* antitrust regulation at all. To me, this does not help gain > trust. > > Now, as to what you said, I will say that I find much of it > incoherent. Perhaps you will unpack it and put it in context of our > current discussion. I mean the following: > > “ By purchasing AIG and in charge of medicare and medicaid and > fingers through regulation in just about every insurance available to > mankind the government basically already runs the insurance industry. > They just do a piss poor job just like they do everything else. > Mostly. How are you going to sue the overnment for anti-trust > issues? I already own stock in the government, in a way. I have > several thousand dollars in T-bills and more in inflation protected > securities. The government is the best game in town. Guess where all > the freakin' jobs are?” – DJ > > On the one hand, you equate the Insurance companies with the > government. This is false. Even how you imply that the government > “basically already runs the insurance industry” is so far off base > that I’m at a loss as to how to respond. It just isn’t the case. And, > the government can be sued. Again, all of this is classical red > herring stuff Don. Perhaps your friends let you get away with it and/ > or are not interested enough to correct you or even may share such > beliefs. Others do not. > You need permission from the government to sue. When an entity tells a company how much it can pay it's executives, what services it must provide and how much it can charge these services many people(not sure about these 'others' you mention) would consider that amount of control 'running things.' > > On the other hand, you are criticizing the government…using the tried > and false commentary about how poorly they run stuff…without > addressing facts let alone your criteria. Medicare, medicaid and mortgage gse's are bankrupt. All run by fed. gov't. Local gov't is different. Unless you're in Detroit. Sorry Molly, your city is a mess. Then you close saying that > government is the best game in town! I don’t know how things are in > your state, but here government is closing down many services… > libraries…schools…energy assistance for the indigent, infrastructure > is being left to rot…all because of the gross intended mismanagement > of the public wealth over the last decade or so. Oh, since the > government is so “piss poor” at things, why would one want to invest > in it???!!! I thought you were a private sector type of guy…instead, I > now find out that you are a closet socialist!!! > Sigh. Now you're baiting me! Daaadyyy!!! I'm talking fed. gov't here. As you point out, state gov't will have to make cuts to pay for the huge new healthcare subsidies coming. Texas has sued to try to stop it but we're shit out of luck. 'Cause guess what? It's really hard to sue your own government. D.C. is loading up on jobs and salaries are going up, up, up. Fact. > > “… Really, Orn. Stop taking what I write so gpersonally. I know I'm > frequently wrong and I don't mind being corrected…” – DJ > > You address me directly in your post, so I take what you write > personally. I corrected you and you criticize me about doing so. In > the next breath you say you don’t mind. Really Don, it is no accident > that you are often misunderstood. > It's my cumbersome thought processes. I'll try to muddle through the best I can. > > “ > Outsourcing non-combat roles is economically feasible. I know several civilians making a good living in Iraq fixing A.C. and providing supporting services trucking or the like. Trained killers should be killing, not sweating the small stuff. I meant I didn't want to go completely toward mercenaries. However, utilizing experienced combat elite like Blackwater personnel for specialized missions like body guards or rescue makes really good sense. I think the military is the best run government entity out there. Fraud anywhere is not ok. For the record, I'll add that I think we have to downsize the military because we cannot sustain the current level of expenditures. However, I think a corresponding downsizing of entitlements was in order BEFORE this latest government mistake. I'm all about cutting costs. Now that you have defined what you think the ‘average citizen’ is, at > least in economic terms, we could do an analysis on just *why* you > feel the tax pressure you do today. It isn’t just a political issue. > There are no accidents in politics I've heard Don. The reason you are > paying more is that those with actual wealth have been paying less and > less for decades now and the slack must be taken up some place. It > isn’t a left/right issue nor a Democrat/Republican one. It is a have/ > have-not and a powerful/not-powerful issue Don. As soon as more people > recognize this and we stop fighting among ourselves, the better we all > will be. Of course, it does appear to be far too late to do so, right? > So it's class warfare then? Can't go there, I like rich people. The most generous people on the planet for the most part. As I've stated before, I'm concerned with the consequences of soaking the rich. As you so aptly put it earlier; they can always leave. And let people go. And invest in other countries. > > As an aside here, I find all of the talk about the ‘middle class’ to > be obscene. I haven’t heard about the poor for years. > Hm. It's a common topic and concern up at the church. Maybe you should try a new house of worship? > > “As far as being easy I think you are incorrect. You cheapen the hard > work and sometimes serendipity involved in success.” - DJ > > Don, few of the wealthy say that they were just lucky in making their > money (or inheriting it…which mostly is the case). Few say that they > would have done anything other than their specific line of ‘work’…most > say they love what they do. So, while your thought is noted, I listen > to those who actually have wealth and find that I cheapen nothing… > except perhaps the story of the mythical carrot …you know the one…it > is held out to poor slobs thinking they will some day, with enough > hard work become rich too. > The facts are that between 1980 and 2000 a whole lot of people did extremely well and made fortunes. Those that were already rich became richer, yes, but we saw many people join these ranks. A simple google of number of millionaires in 1975 compared with millionaires in 1995 Should prove this. I purposefully didn't mention luck. I don't believe in it or coincidence. You make your own luck. Seizing unexpected opportunities is the key to improvement. You can't plan for everything as I've so harshly learned recently. There are no guarantees to success. You make it sound like it's not worth trying. I submit that if the dream is there you should try to catch it-one achievable goal at a time. Embracing mediocrity is the one sure way to obtain it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Wealth is not meant for everyone. I like to be employed. I remember being depressed and downright dejected standing in the unemployment line. I hated not having a job and not having enough money to do what I wanted to do. Some of the worst weeks of my life. Even now, I sweat over having enough to ensure my family's happiness. I'm optimistic but reality requires my constant diligence and planning. It's frustrating. I really don't think I'm ever truly satisfied with my progress. Although I do get brief periods of satisfaction. Like my son's participation in Battle of the Bands recently. I know what is important but I still sometimes miss what i gave up to tackle the more important stuff. I'm imperfect and NOT satisfied with my performance. Nor will I ever be I think. > > “As for things becoming more difficult for those not in the upper > crust over the last 30 years I totally disagree. Many, many have > JOINED the upper crust during this time and many millions have come > much closer then they dreamed possible due to the remarkable > opportunities afforded them in our formerly booming economy. Vilify > consumerism if you must but it does wonders for the economy. If we > could just not have abused our credit we'd probably still be growing > but at a slower and more measured pace. Irrational exuberance and easy > money(fed. policies) greased the skids of our demise.” - DJ > > Of course your opinion is noted again Don. Sadly, the facts differ and > by not a little either. In a way, I wish we could have a drink > together Don…what I see here is a person who has been sold a bill of > goods that he will never be able to collect upon…and I’m sad about > that. I doubt that you wish my pity, but none the less…there it is. > Again, we have much to share…even if it isn’t the capitalistic Kool- > Aid. > The facts don't differ at all. I understand the desire to help the poor and even the thinking that the rich don't do enough to help. What I think is obvious is that today's poor are fed better, have better shelter and more opportunity then they did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. Yes, there is more disparity but the over all condition is improved. I don't see a lot of disagreement on this subject. At least when speaking of Americans. A rising tide really does lift all boats. <------------freebie one-liner. dj -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
