CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Let me turn it around. Just about every conceivable permutation has been
tried or is in use somewhere. Can you find a system that works better for
everyone?

As indicated in a previous post in this thread, several other countries
have exhibited dramatically better results than the U.S.

Name three.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
CJT wrote:
Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people?

Since 1787, Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power [...] To
establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

You're saying people on the other end of The Bridge To Nowhere won't get
mail until they build TBTN?

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

"clifto" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already
purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding.

Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing
blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic
and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to
actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely
changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the
politicians.

If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all
military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen
in
the ensuing months after he made that statement?

Democrat or Republican?


Either way. Gimme both of your guesses.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already
purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding.

Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing
blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic
and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to
actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely
changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the
politicians.

If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all
military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen
in
the ensuing months after he made that statement?

Democrat or Republican?


Either way. Gimme both of your guesses.

Democrat will get what he wants, as in your Carter example. Republican
will be denied. A Republican president could campaign for world peace
and the Congress would vote against it just to keep him from looking good.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

"clifto" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already
purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding.

Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing
blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic
and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to
actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely
changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the
politicians.

If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all
military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen
in
the ensuing months after he made that statement?

Democrat or Republican?


Either way. Gimme both of your guesses.

Democrat will get what he wants, as in your Carter example. Republican
will be denied. A Republican president could campaign for world peace
and the Congress would vote against it just to keep him from looking good.


It might not be a campaign for peace. It could also be a politician having
the balls to tell the American public that a lot of the weapons we sell
overseas end up in the wrong hands. Or, the right hands end up being the
wrong ones later, a la Taliban.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has
already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding.

Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of
placing blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too
simplistic and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making
any effort to actually understand the underlying causes. It is
used often by merely changing the name of the industry or group
that has bought the politicians.

If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of
all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose
would happen in
the ensuing months after he made that statement?

Democrat or Republican?


Either way. Gimme both of your guesses.

The candidate from any party who represent true conservative principals that
embrace libertarian values? Eschewing the radical extreme of either party
for original Constitutional intent?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has
already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding.

Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of
placing blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too
simplistic and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making
any effort to actually understand the underlying causes. It is
used often by merely changing the name of the industry or group
that has bought the politicians.

If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of
all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose
would happen in
the ensuing months after he made that statement?

Democrat or Republican?


Either way. Gimme both of your guesses.

The candidate from any party who represent true conservative principals
that embrace libertarian values? Eschewing the radical extreme of either
party for original Constitutional intent?

--
Dave


That's basically the idea. We can dream, but because people are people, I
don't think we'll ever see this.

Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

clifto wrote:

I'm not. Something like the UK or Canadian system is what "they"
want.

I don't think they want quite that good a system. For example, I
believe one can still pick his own doctor in UK; Hillarycare had a
$10,000 fine for trying to go to a doctor other than the one you were
assigned.

True for the UK. The NHS does allow private practice.

Not so (generally) in Canada. The Quebec Supreme Court recently ruled that
Canadians have a "right" to medical care and that, if it cannot be provided
in a timely fashion by the state, the patient can seek private care. This
decision is not binding on all of Canada and is being appealed by the
government.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of
all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would
happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement?

They might retaliate, then we'd really be in a pickle.

Israel supplies 40% of our small arms ammunition.



That's not because we can't supply it if we chose to do so. Israel
probably insisted on selling us ammo if we wanted them to buy our
stuff.

I do wish you'd do some research before you pop-off so authoritatively.

And it IS because we can't make it ourselves. Here's an update from a couple
of months ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...tion-shortage/

Here's another:
http://www.allbusiness.com/manufactu.../525465-1.html

What the reports don't say is that the US military uses domestic production
for its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but uses Israeli-made ammo for
training. Why?

Can you imagine the agitation if a US shell casing was found with Hebrew
letters?

Innocent people would twitch to death.

In article ,
clifto wrote:


I don't think they want quite that good a system. For example, I believe
one can still pick his own doctor in UK; Hillarycare had a $10,000 fine
for trying to go to a doctor other than the one you were assigned.

My favorite is that no one is trying to say you can't use your own
money if you want somehing the system won't pay for. While that is
technically true in MCare, if the provider accepts payment for something
that ain't approved by MCare, they are guilty of MCare Fraud with
attendant legal and fiscal challenges. So, yeah I could spend my money,
but nobody could actually accept it. Don't see a real difference here.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:



This isn't a question of party affiliation. It's an example of how
*ALL* politicians are indebted in some way to corporate sponsors.
There are NO exceptions. None.

I agree, and that's the way it should be.

The powerful and affluent act as a brake on the mindless roar of the
unwashed masses. It's a check-and-balance, a division of labor.

It's to the eliete's credit that we've seldom elected a "populist" (Andrew
Jackson and FDR being the only two). The smoke-filled-room men are the
unsung heros of this republic and have helped immeasurably to make America
the greatest nation in the world.

But the rabble get some credit.

"Popular" revolutions (French Revolution, the English Civil War, Mao
Tse-Tung, Cuba, etc.) have uniformly produced disasters, but the threat of
same generally keeps the tyrants semi-honest.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:

The point is that an insurance company cannot spread their risk over
a larger base if they have to operate in only one state.

Because of this limitation, hurricane insurance is cheaper in
Missouri than in Florida and flood insurance is cheaper in New
Mexico than Ohio.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with relative risk...

No, but if you spread the risk around, Florida can get cheaper hurricane
insurance and Ohio folk can save on flood.

clifto wrote:

A road by someone's house usually isn't pork. A Woodstock Museum is
pork.

Not to me. I was there.

Then get the private sector to fund it.

They can't. They spend all their available funds on medical Marijuana (they
need it to treat Ganja addiction).

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:



This isn't a question of party affiliation. It's an example of how
*ALL* politicians are indebted in some way to corporate sponsors.
There are NO exceptions. None.

I agree, and that's the way it should be.

The powerful and affluent act as a brake on the mindless roar of the
unwashed masses. It's a check-and-balance, a division of labor.


There's a big difference between taking care of your constituents, and being
paid in various ways to look the other way when wrong is being done by your
contributors.

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:

What the reports don't say is that the US military uses domestic production
for its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but uses Israeli-made ammo for
training. Why?

Can you imagine the agitation if a US shell casing was found with Hebrew
letters?

Or even marked in Roman letters saying "Made in Israel" ...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

The candidate from any party who represent true conservative
principals that embrace libertarian values? Eschewing the radical
extreme of either party for original Constitutional intent?

That's basically the idea. We can dream, but because people are
people, I don't think we'll ever see this.

Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

I would never support a Martian. I can support a Catholic, Christian,
Mormon, Agnostic/Atheist, Buddhist, et al.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...

So, without having the balls to reveal a number, you know for a fact that
the number is one that ANYONE can afford.

8. There, happy?

Have some fun with this:
http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ihmoindx.htm

NYS is a socialist rat hole, one that has actively chased insurers
out (not just health). I lived in NYS for 20 years. Never again.
&Deity. help you if they pass "universal health care".


--
Keith


Interesting numbers, aren't they? And, in many instances, the prices are
higher in counties with lower per capita income. The explanation would
probably make for great entertainment.

No, I find nothing about NYS in any way interesting.

So, back to your original statement: "Going without insurance is foolish."

It is, so buy it! Fire your government if they won't let you.

There are people about whom you can say nothing negative, but who can't
afford $2000 a month for insurance, or even part of that cost. Are they
foolish, or stuck?

They're certainly not stuck. They can move our of that **** hole.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

I've been on both sides now too. I worked for &megacorp. for more
than thirty years before an offer came by that I couldn't refuse.
I hadn't considered contracting but the job sounded interesting.
The money was too hard to turn down, even though I lived away from
home for three months (then moved them after the house sold). A
few things have surprised me, all positive. As far as records go,
I've kept everything, though I have been remiss in keeping it all
organized. ...too much overtime. ;-)

Heh! Me too. Thirty years ago I found out, by accident, what my boss made. I
figured that if I was going to work for a fool, it might as well be me.

I didn't work for too many fools (something about oil an water),
but I understand your point. ;-)


--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can get
behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.


--
Keith

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can get
behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.


--
Keith


Define "win", in your own terms. No web links, no cut & paste jobs.

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:
That is why insurance companies have a different corporation names in
different states.

Of course they do. They have different corporations depending on
who you are (your risk) too. There is little choice, given the
"maze a twisty passages, all different", that the states have
weaved.

(Allstate is "Allstate Floridian" here and I suspect they are also
Royal Palm)

Your point?

The point is that an insurance company cannot spread their risk over a
larger base if they have to operate in only one state.

Because of this limitation, hurricane insurance is cheaper in Missouri than
in Florida and flood insurance is cheaper in New Mexico than Ohio.

Sounds reasonable to me.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:

The point is that an insurance company cannot spread their risk over
a larger base if they have to operate in only one state.

Because of this limitation, hurricane insurance is cheaper in
Missouri than in Florida and flood insurance is cheaper in New
Mexico than Ohio.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with relative risk...

No, but if you spread the risk around, Florida can get cheaper hurricane
insurance and Ohio folk can save on flood.

And the people in Colorado pay for both.

--
Keith

In article , "Dave Bugg" wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

I would never support a Martian. I can support a Catholic, Christian,

Ummmm..... Catholics *are* Christians.

Mormon, Agnostic/Atheist, Buddhist, et al.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Dave Bugg"
wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

I would never support a Martian. I can support a Catholic, Christian,

Ummmm..... Catholics *are* Christians.

Hmmmm, not to most protestants. But that's a different discussion. For my
point, let's remove 'christian', and replace it with 'protestant.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Dave Bugg"
wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

I would never support a Martian. I can support a Catholic, Christian,

Ummmm..... Catholics *are* Christians.

Hmmmm, not to most protestants.


True. I know evangelists who consider Catholics to be as heretical as
Wiccans.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 07:59:44 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?


We need a new word for this ******* situation !

We "WON" the war 5 (?) years ago
when we defeated the Iraqui army.

What we haven't achieved is "PEACE"


rj

In article , "Dave Bugg" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Dave Bugg"
wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

I would never support a Martian. I can support a Catholic, Christian,

Ummmm..... Catholics *are* Christians.

Hmmmm, not to most protestants.

I disagree, and so would nearly all Protestants of my acquaintance.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Jan 1, 2:40*pm, krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:

You're an idiot. *Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. *Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can get
behind.

No, apparently it's not. *The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A subtle
difference but an important difference that needs to be understood.

On Jan 1, 5:12*pm, "RJ" wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 07:59:44 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
krw wrote:

You're an idiot. *Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. *Are you all for that
too?

We need a new word for this ******* situation !

We "WON" the war 5 (?) years ago
when we defeated the Iraqui army.

What we haven't achieved is "PEACE"

rj

You are right!

In article
,
BobR wrote:


Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A subtle
difference but an important difference that needs to be understood.

Of course since Bush isn't running this time, the subtle difference
could make the race lots more interesting than it might have been
otherwise.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
BobR wrote:


Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A subtle
difference but an important difference that needs to be understood.

Of course since Bush isn't running this time, the subtle difference
could make the race lots more interesting than it might have been
otherwise.


The real team players like me want to see Bush lose every day, in every
possible way. I love seeing him make a fool of himself when he doesn't have
a script, and then watching as his worshippers in various newsgroups attempt
to rationalize his inability to speak our native language. I'd like to see
his dog get run over by a car. I enjoyed the recent intelligence
reassessment of Iran's nuclear activities, and Bush's subsequent attempt to
say something about it that made sense. I'd like for him to demonstrate his
pretzel eating skills one more time.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Dave Bugg"
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Dave Bugg"
wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

I would never support a Martian. I can support a Catholic,
Christian,

Ummmm..... Catholics *are* Christians.

Hmmmm, not to most protestants.

I disagree, and so would nearly all Protestants of my acquaintance.

As I said in the portion you snipped, that's a different discussion and I
changed the word.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

BobR wrote:
On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A subtle
difference but an important difference that needs to be understood.

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't someone tell
all those investing Democrats?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Kurt Ullman wrote:
snip while the strident liberals can't see any possible
solutions that don't require taking over the entire system.

It seems you haven't been paying attention.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!


"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.


Nonsense.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Don't say Ron Paul. Please.

I would never support a Martian. I can support a Catholic, Christian,

Ummmm..... Catholics *are* Christians.

Hmmmm, not to most protestants.



True. I know evangelists who consider Catholics to be as heretical as
Wiccans.


Truth be told, a lot of evangelists are not Christians (defined as
"followers of the teachings of Christ").

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Dave Bugg wrote:

BobR wrote:

On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!


"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A subtle
difference but an important difference that needs to be understood.


Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't someone tell
all those investing Democrats?

Bush is trying to salvage his legacy. His legacy is fixed. He's the
worst President the United States has ever had (and there have been some
remarkably bad ones).

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

RJ wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 07:59:44 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

krw wrote:
You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

We need a new word for this ******* situation !

We "WON" the war 5 (?) years ago
when we defeated the Iraqui army.

What we haven't achieved is "PEACE"


rj


What we have done is succeeded in expanding the "war on terror" into
Iraq. Once it is won there, we will move it to Iran. Then once it is won
there, we will move it to Saudi Arabia. Then once it is won there, we
will move it to ..............................................

Geez, doesn't it sound like a draft WILL eventually be necessary? Then
everybody will have health care through the VA. Of course everybody will
have to move next door to a VA hospital to be able to get care. Shame on
you if you decide to live 75 miles from one.

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

BobR wrote:

On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!


"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.


Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?

Bush is trying to salvage his legacy. His legacy is fixed. He's the
worst President the United States has ever had (and there have been
some remarkably bad ones).

So? What's the connection with your statement and Democrats wanting Bush to
lose when he isn't up for election?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article , CJT
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
snip while the strident liberals can't see any possible
solutions that don't require taking over the entire system.

It seems you haven't been paying attention.

So enlighten me. As I said the most strident liberals can't
see solutions other than that. I guess you agree with the other half of
that statement.