He reversed a position
that he held of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent
circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict.

Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not
read the news? Do you?

Do you correspond intelligently? Just what in the hell is that
supposed to mean? Other than yet another failed attempt by you to
throw a jab. You are proving yourself to be unworthy of any
intelligent form of conversation. Content yourself with simply
throwing out meaningless insults. You can converse with yourself.


Happiness can never be mine now, having proven my unworthiness.

I come to rec.woodworking for a bit of repartee and to poke fun at the most
egregious bits of silliness that I come across, your "altering course"
comment falling squarely into that category. If I want deadly earnest
discussions of important issues, I can find that at home or with friends -
yakking into my laptop is an ephemeral source of amusement at best.

Sorry if I hit a nerve.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The
Chameleon.

McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less
regulation.

Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the
wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage.

Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears,
he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again.


1) Have the government spend money it does not have for decades
because people have a "right" to ...(healthcare, retirement,
cheap drugs, a house, a BMW, midnight basketball, education ...).

2) When the looming debt - the overwhelming majority of which is
the consequences of government social spending - comes back to
haunt us, set fiscal policy to ensure a weak dollar - thereby
paying off old debt with now very weak dollars.

3) When the credit markets then go illiquid (because the money is
phony), blame Wall St., the Republicans, pretty much anyone
*except* the big government fools who are actually responsible
(aka "progressives", "liberals", "compassionate conservatives",
"social democrats" and other peddlers of economic fairy tales).

4) Do not allow the markets to correct for this economic house of
cards. Use it as an excuse to further Federalize US business
and its people.

5) Blame Bush, McCain, fiscal conservatives/libertarians, and
their ilk in a massive act of misdirection while the US slips
much more deeply into the collectivist sewer, possibly to be
overseen by the arch Leninist, Comrade Obama.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Elrond Hubbard wrote:
I love it.

Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound"
to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and
you characterize it as 'altering course.'

With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.

If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his
action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
justification.

Priceless.
Scott

I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple concepts
but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on occasion? The
country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically never considered high
or particularly significant). The mortgage industry has a approx. 6.2%
default rate that is 3X higher than probably desired but well under the 40%
rate of the 30's. The country has a well trained and educated work force. A
infrastructure of roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and
abundant transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the best and
brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring both legally and
otherwise to get into the country. Please explain for us less mentally
endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper shuffling debt problem trumps
all of the real physical properties that actually make this a great and the
most productive country in the world. In fact if the country in both the
business and private sector could learn that credit should be used with
serious discretion and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible,
long term we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow
mentality is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod

Rod Jacobson wrote:
Elrond Hubbard wrote:
I love it.

Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel
locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound"
to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and
you characterize it as 'altering course.'

With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.

If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his
action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
justification.

Priceless.
Scott

I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple concepts
but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on occasion? The
country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically never considered high
or particularly significant). The mortgage industry has a approx. 6.2%
default rate that is 3X higher than probably desired but well under the 40%
rate of the 30's. The country has a well trained and educated work force. A
infrastructure of roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and
abundant transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the best and
brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring both legally and
otherwise to get into the country. Please explain for us less mentally
endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper shuffling debt problem trumps
all of the real physical properties that actually make this a great and the
most productive country in the world. In fact if the country in both the
business and private sector could learn that credit should be used with
serious discretion and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible,
long term we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow
mentality is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod



Uh ... you are going to confuse the Bush-haters and assorted other
effluvium from the left with all those facts and numbers. See,
you don't learn math when doing ritual tribal dances to get your
political viewpoint clarified. The stock market is not the
economy, this too shall pass, and - as you point out - we
are not remotely in Depression era trouble. However, Comrade
Obama and his fellow Marxists *are* in political trouble. They
need to manufacture and emergency to have a hope of being elected.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Rod Jacobson wrote:
Elrond Hubbard wrote:
I love it.

Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree
four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is
fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the
Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.'

With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.

If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate
his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
justification.

Priceless.
Scott

I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple
concepts but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on
occasion? The country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically
never considered high or particularly significant). The mortgage
industry has a approx. 6.2% default rate that is 3X higher than
probably desired but well under the 40% rate of the 30's. The country
has a well trained and educated work force. A infrastructure of
roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and abundant
transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the
best and brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring
both legally and otherwise to get into the country. Please explain
for us less mentally endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper
shuffling debt problem trumps all of the real physical properties
that actually make this a great and the most productive country in
the world. In fact if the country in both the business and private
sector could learn that credit should be used with serious discretion
and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible, long term
we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow mentality
is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod



Uh ... you are going to confuse the Bush-haters and assorted other
effluvium from the left with all those facts and numbers. See,
you don't learn math when doing ritual tribal dances to get your
political viewpoint clarified. The stock market is not the
economy, this too shall pass, and - as you point out - we
are not remotely in Depression era trouble. However, Comrade
Obama and his fellow Marxists *are* in political trouble. They
need to manufacture and emergency to have a hope of being elected.

The manufactured emergency is produced by greed and an ability of Madison
Avenue to entice people who are not credit-worthy to go into debt over
(far over) their heads. Plus incompetents who sell Ponzi schemes of
insurance on that exorbitant debt. It is a defect of laissez-faire and
utter lack of regulation, as well expressed by the short sellers who now
want to have their cloak of deception back now short selling has to be
publicized unless totally forbidden. Finally the despicpublicans realize
that unfettered financial deception has led us to the brink of financial
disaster as a country, not just a few individuals and corporations,
because of the domino effect and the ability of short sellers to trash
big and small companies. My Lehman stock is still on the books, but
practically worthless of course. The Us is founded on free exchange of
information and free trade where people can take risks without having the
wool pulled over their eyes. Indeed I have never voted Republican, but
that doesn't mean that fisccal responsibility is really (REALLY) my first
concern. Fairness is the only thing that trumps that.

As always, my opinions are just that, opinions, and I respect yours even
if I disagree. I admit even to sometimes being wrong, but not this time,
grin!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...


All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive greed
of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators should protect
the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go both ways - the
unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should be punished, but in
a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended) protected. If I have
been prudently spending and borrowing within my means, why should I have
to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous bankers and the stupid
borrowers?


Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the woods?
Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in our
conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in these events
personally responsible. Financially responsible. And not just in light of
this debacle - this type of house of cards problem persists throughout
corporate America as CEO's play fast and loose in the name of creating the
appearance of profit and health. They leave - they take their golden
parachutes or their bonus package and the mess is left behind. No matter -
they're off with their wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not
begrudge anyone wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem
with the ill gotten gains of deceit.

--

-Mike-

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...


Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. I've always wanted to own my
own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my money,
of course so that makes it a great investment. The interest will assure
that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in.
We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG
policies too.

With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. As an
owner, we all get company cars. Are you in?


Yeahbut you don't understand the real problem here Edwin. Leave it to the
government to do a deal... So here we are, now part owners in our own
insurance/finance company. Could be good - we should be expecting those
nice big bonuses pretty soon, don't you think? I mean - just give it a
short time to get things right, and then we should be able to expect those.
But - like I said leave it to the government to screw up a deal. Just about
the time the company is healthy enough to start paying us those sweet
bonuses, we have to give the damned thing back.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...


All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive
greed of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators
should protect the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go
both ways - the unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should
be punished, but in a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended)
protected. If I have been prudently spending and borrowing within my
means, why should I have to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous
bankers and the stupid borrowers?


Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the
woods? Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in
our conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in
these events personally responsible. Financially responsible. And
not just in light of this debacle - this type of house of cards
problem persists throughout corporate America as CEO's play fast and
loose in the name of creating the appearance of profit and health.
They leave - they take their golden parachutes or their bonus package
and the mess is left behind. No matter - they're off with their
wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not begrudge anyone
wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem with the ill
gotten gains of deceit.

EXACTLY!

But then there are the lobbyists ... I'll do you one good, but see,
there is this terrible provision ... Or, it would be so much better if
(there was a road to nowhere) ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...

All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive greed
of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators should protect
the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go both ways - the
unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should be punished, but in
a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended) protected. If I have
been prudently spending and borrowing within my means, why should I have
to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous bankers and the stupid
borrowers?


Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the woods?
Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in our
conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in these events
personally responsible. Financially responsible. And not just in light of
this debacle - this type of house of cards problem persists throughout
corporate America as CEO's play fast and loose in the name of creating the
appearance of profit and health. They leave - they take their golden
parachutes or their bonus package and the mess is left behind. No matter -
they're off with their wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not
begrudge anyone wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem
with the ill gotten gains of deceit.


It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:zksBk.16947
:

It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.



I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.

And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
would pay more taxes too.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Rod Jacobson wrote:
Elrond Hubbard wrote:
I love it.

Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree
four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is
fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the
Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.'

With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope.

If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate
his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full
justification.

Priceless.
Scott
I can understand how clue less TV talking heads can't grasp simple
concepts but isn't the general public at least supposed to think on
occasion? The country has a 6.1 % unemployment rate (historically
never considered high or particularly significant). The mortgage
industry has a approx. 6.2% default rate that is 3X higher than
probably desired but well under the 40% rate of the 30's. The country
has a well trained and educated work force. A infrastructure of
roads, rail and air that allow relatively cheap and abundant
transport. A farm and food production capacity dwarfing any
historical norm. A college and university system that attracts the
best and brightest from around the world. We have millions clamoring
both legally and otherwise to get into the country. Please explain
for us less mentally endowed how a temporary Wall street big paper
shuffling debt problem trumps all of the real physical properties
that actually make this a great and the most productive country in
the world. In fact if the country in both the business and private
sector could learn that credit should be used with serious discretion
and that indeed you should pay cash whenever possible, long term
we'll be much better off.......The easy credit and borrow mentality
is really a fairly recent development (20-30yrs).....Rod


Uh ... you are going to confuse the Bush-haters and assorted other
effluvium from the left with all those facts and numbers. See,
you don't learn math when doing ritual tribal dances to get your
political viewpoint clarified. The stock market is not the
economy, this too shall pass, and - as you point out - we
are not remotely in Depression era trouble. However, Comrade
Obama and his fellow Marxists *are* in political trouble. They
need to manufacture and emergency to have a hope of being elected.

The manufactured emergency is produced by greed and an ability of Madison
Avenue to entice people who are not credit-worthy to go into debt over
(far over) their heads. Plus incompetents who sell Ponzi schemes of

Ohhh, those poor people. They clearly cannot be responsible for
themselves and need a huge government to be their daddy ... viva la
revolucion comrade. Madison Ave. (and no one else, for that matter)
has never managed to entice me into debt far over my head. Ditto
most of my friends. However did we manage to do this without the
help of Big Brother, I wonder?

insurance on that exorbitant debt. It is a defect of laissez-faire and
utter lack of regulation, as well expressed by the short sellers who now

What you have witnessed is NOT laisses-faire. A true free market would
not be bailing out either the borrowers or the lenders. You and your
ilk want to bail out the borrowers but screw the lenders. This is a
particularly nasty bit of dishonesty. (Similarly, the bias of the
right is to protect the lenders first - also a horrid travesty.
Moreover, in many states, some kinds of insurance are mandatory (auto,
leaps to mind). When you have government-forced insurance, you no
longer have laissez-faire. In general, people love to criticize the
defects of *interfering* with laissez-faire, while blaming it at the
same time.


want to have their cloak of deception back now short selling has to be
publicized unless totally forbidden. Finally the despicpublicans realize
that unfettered financial deception has led us to the brink of financial
disaster as a country, not just a few individuals and corporations,
because of the domino effect and the ability of short sellers to trash
big and small companies. My Lehman stock is still on the books, but

Or ... maybe the companies in question really were overvalued and needed
the market to correct them. People with your views always make me
chuckle. You act as if the short sellers have no market forces controlling
stupidity on their part. There is a slight case to be made against
naked short selling because it trades "value" without an underlying
equity. But shorting as a general trading mechanism is no better- or
worse than buying long positions.

practically worthless of course. The Us is founded on free exchange of
information and free trade where people can take risks without having the
wool pulled over their eyes. Indeed I have never voted Republican, but
that doesn't mean that fisccal responsibility is really (REALLY) my first
concern. Fairness is the only thing that trumps that.

Then let me be the first to point out to you that life is not "fair"
and in some particular way, neither are markets. A Noble was won
years ago (Hayek) for demonstrating that all opportunities to profit
in markets come from an *imbalance* in information. (At least, that's
how it was explained to me.) Should markets be *honest*? Yup.
Should they be transparent? Yup. But markets are never going to be
"fair".


As always, my opinions are just that, opinions, and I respect yours even
if I disagree. I admit even to sometimes being wrong, but not this time,
grin!

At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
we are legitimately entitled to it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:zksBk.16947
:

It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.



I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.

And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
would pay more taxes too.


I'd be all for that so long as:

1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.

2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
authority to operate.

3) Take the caps off 401Ks and make it clear to people it is their
responsibility to worry about their own retirement. Better yet,
go to a flat tax like the Fair Tax system and eliminate income taxes
altogether.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:6p1iq5-2572.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
we are legitimately entitled to it.


I think we are much more alike than you suspect. I am for individual
responsibility, and I do think those who went in over their head should not
come off scott-free (sp?). But I still think the basic mistake for want of
a better word is not enough regulation and oversight. In a free market
there should be responsibility (enforced or natural) to prevent excesses
such as the savings and loan debacle, the dotcom bubble and now the housing
and debt bubble. To let the free market correct itself with boom and bust
is not good governance.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:zksBk.16947
:

It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.



I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.

If by that you mean the future taxpayers that will have to pay increased
income taxes to pay off the debt that the trust funds contain as a
result of spending the excess FICA taxes today, you are correct - dual
taxation.

And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
would pay more taxes too.

That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess SS
dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.

In article ,
says...
Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:zksBk.16947
:

It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.



I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.

And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
would pay more taxes too.

The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".

I'd be all for that so long as:

1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.

How exactly does the government "bank" anything?

2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
authority to operate.

I'd go for this, but your congress critter wouldn't like the pay
cut.

3) Take the caps off 401Ks and make it clear to people it is their
responsibility to worry about their own retirement. Better yet,
go to a flat tax like the Fair Tax system and eliminate income taxes
altogether.

I'm unconvinced by the "fair tax" but your suggestion, taken as a
whole, is a lot better than what we have now.

--
Keith

Doug Winterburn wrote in
:

Han wrote:
snip
And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and
unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs.
Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.

That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess
SS dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.

Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
from current taxes, if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
live on.

As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that
a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should
be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and
premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous
habits should carry a penalty.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
:

Han wrote:
snip
And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and
unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs.
Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.
That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess
SS dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.

Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
from current taxes,

If the excess contributions were invested in corporate stocks/bonds
rather than government debt, future shortfalls would be covered by the
profits of those corporations - such as Exxon-Mobil - rather than taxing
future generations a second time for the same purpose.

if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
live on.

Agree. That is exactly what I am living on in retirement - the
investments I made during my working career. And those investments are
also paying my medical insurance premiums with no undue financial pain.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
authority to operate.

AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
Africa.

Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."

Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
Constitution needs to be changed.

A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
to be interpreted to fit today's society.

Han wrote:

Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
from current taxes, if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
live on.

And yet, a large number of retired people do just that.

Consider, if you would, the situation faced by the retired spouse or
parent(s) of a cancer patient when all available resources had been
spent on medical treatments.

Consider also what happens when pension fund (of whatever kind) is
rendered valueless through no fault of the retiree.

As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that
a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should
be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and
premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous
habits should carry a penalty.

Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off the
top of my head...

Smoking
Firefighting
Motorcycling
Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull
Entering a conflict zone
Entering a disaster zone
Teaching in an inner city school
Being a student in an inner city school
Working in law enforcement
Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone
Driving a motor vehicle
Consuming alcohol

What is the nature of the penalty you would choose
(fine/imprisonment/exile/death/other)?

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you've
thought things through quite far enough...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar
paid from current taxes, if you really want to have a real
retirement, it is up to you, through your union (puke), employer
(double puke), 401K, IRA or what have you. SS is just a drop in the
bucket, not really enough to live on.

And yet, a large number of retired people do just that.

It would put a real crimp in my lifestyle. I hope my other investments
don't go the way of my Lehman stock. Not that I would choose single
investments for something like my pension.

Consider, if you would, the situation faced by the retired spouse or
parent(s) of a cancer patient when all available resources had been
spent on medical treatments.

Note that I also said that affordable health insurance at a certain
minimal level should be compulsory, and it should be possible to augment
it to one's heart's content. I think that's were we get to the point
were individual responsibility needs to take over. At what point is
treatment only prolonging life, and who has to decide? Very difficult
but necessary questions.

Consider also what happens when pension fund (of whatever kind) is
rendered valueless through no fault of the retiree.

It is always the fault of the retiree (well, almost always). Pension
funds should be very diversified. Just Enron stock is criminal - both
for the employee and the employer.

As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe
that a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on
insurance should be affordable, and available at different levels of
benefits and premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or
other dangerous habits should carry a penalty.

Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off
the top of my head...

Some answers ...

Smoking
I stopped in 1976
Firefighting
Motorcycling
Never done that, unless a oped when I was around 20 counts.
Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull
Does a cell phone count?
Entering a conflict zone
Entering a disaster zone
I work in NY City, in a Veterans Affairs Hospital (but they don't pay me)
Teaching in an inner city school
Son-in-law teaches Math in Paterson NJ, daughter in a not too much better
area. They are enjoying it tremendously, truely! And seeing
disadvantaged kids "get it" is a real treat.
Being a student in an inner city school
Working in law enforcement
That's Raoul
Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone
Driving a motor vehicle
I do that seldomly, and probably should be more careful.
Consuming alcohol
Never in excess. It makes me morose and sick. I guess I'm lucky

What is the nature of the penalty you would choose
(fine/imprisonment/exile/death/other)?

Sorry, increased insurance rates or reduced coverage or both, so among
your choices, it would be death grin.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think
you've thought things through quite far enough...

You know or should know that I was born in Holland many years ago, and
came to the US in 1969, where I have been in HMOs ever since.

As far as thinking it through, I don't think you can ever think it
through completely.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
authority to operate.

AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
Africa.

Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."

Just because all the kids...

Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
Constitution needs to be changed.

It doesn't. So change it. The instructions are included.

A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
to be interpreted to fit today's society.

Irrelevant. It was written by some pretty smart dudes, of which
there are too few today.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
:

Han wrote:
snip
And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and
unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs.
Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.
That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess
SS dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.

Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
from current taxes,

If the excess contributions were invested in corporate stocks/bonds
rather than government debt, future shortfalls would be covered by the
profits of those corporations - such as Exxon-Mobil - rather than taxing
future generations a second time for the same purpose.

Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?

if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
live on.

Agree. That is exactly what I am living on in retirement - the
investments I made during my working career. And those investments are
also paying my medical insurance premiums with no undue financial pain.


--
Keith

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
authority to operate.

AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
Africa.

Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."

Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
Constitution needs to be changed.

A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
to be interpreted to fit today's society.


I do not like seeing my freedoms and economic future eroded because
people who see things your way are unwilling to follow the law to
achieve what they want. We live with a lawless government, a thieving
public, and a permanent whining victim class as a result. Oh, and BTW,
"we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal? I like our healthcare
system - it's just fine with me as it is ... or it least it is better
than anything those morons in D.C. could ever do. You want healthcare
run with the same effectiveness as the people who scan our luggage
at the airport. I don't.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:zksBk.16947
:

It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.


I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.

And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
would pay more taxes too.

The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".
I'd be all for that so long as:

1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.

How exactly does the government "bank" anything?

What I meant was that any surplus derived hereby would have to be use
to accelerate the retirement of the SS system and /or pay for benefits.
It could not be redirected to general budget items. And, yes, the
government could "bank" money - they could open a savings account
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:6p1iq5-2572.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
we are legitimately entitled to it.


I think we are much more alike than you suspect. I am for individual
responsibility, and I do think those who went in over their head should not
come off scott-free (sp?). But I still think the basic mistake for want of
a better word is not enough regulation and oversight. In a free market

Really? You think Federal regulators are more trustworthy and honorable
than politicians and incompetent CEOs??? I don't. With the exception of
the military and parts of the DOJ, most government jobs draw people who
are *less* competent and would have trouble functioning in the private
sector in my observation.

there should be responsibility (enforced or natural) to prevent excesses
such as the savings and loan debacle, the dotcom bubble and now the housing
and debt bubble. To let the free market correct itself with boom and bust
is not good governance.

You need to read a bunch of Econ 101 stuff. What you propose is a fantasy:
That free markets can be regulated and remain effective/efficient. You
CANNOT regulate a financial system of any size without doing great harm
to it. The idea that economies can be managed should have died with
nauseating example of the USSR, but Western lefties never seem to get it.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,

Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?

Wouldn't that be a 180 degree turn-around? Don't corporations own
Congress now?

Dave [the Cynic] in Houston

In article ,
says...
Larry Blanchard wrote:

snip

A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or
less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs
to be interpreted to fit today's society.


I do not like seeing my freedoms and economic future eroded because
people who see things your way are unwilling to follow the law to
achieve what they want. We live with a lawless government, a thieving
public, and a permanent whining victim class as a result. Oh, and BTW,
"we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal? I like our healthcare
system - it's just fine with me as it is ... or it least it is better
than anything those morons in D.C. could ever do. You want healthcare
run with the same effectiveness as the people who scan our luggage
at the airport. I don't.

s/luggage/security/

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:zksBk.16947
:

It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme
whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds"
that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by
Enron. Been going on since FDR.


I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for
the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to
fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.

And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so
the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I
would pay more taxes too.

The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".
I'd be all for that so long as:

1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any
surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.

How exactly does the government "bank" anything?

What I meant was that any surplus derived hereby would have to be use
to accelerate the retirement of the SS system and /or pay for benefits.
It could not be redirected to general budget items. And, yes, the
government could "bank" money - they could open a savings account

A very bad idea. How much money does that "savings account" have to
have in it before it grossly warps the market worse than deficit
spending does? How much direct influence does the federal
government have to have in the private sector before...

--
Keith

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,

Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?

Wouldn't that be a 180 degree turn-around? Don't corporations own
Congress now?

So, you'd rather have the incompetent crooks in Washington owning
all corporations? Perhaps you'd be happier in the FSU?

--
Keith

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?
Wouldn't that be a 180 degree turn-around? Don't corporations own
Congress now?

So, you'd rather have the incompetent crooks in Washington owning
all corporations? Perhaps you'd be happier in the FSU?


I'd rather have citizens owning corporations in privatized accounts.
The current method of having government spend the money in retirement
accounts and replacing it with government IOUs adds up to $4 trillion in
debt with another $40 or so trillion to go. Our kids and grandkids are
going to love being taxed a second time for the same thing we already
paid taxes for.

Morris Dovey wrote:

Han wrote:

.... snip

As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that
a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should
be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and
premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous
habits should carry a penalty.

Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off the
top of my head...

Smoking
Firefighting
Motorcycling
Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull
Entering a conflict zone
Entering a disaster zone
Teaching in an inner city school
Being a student in an inner city school
Working in law enforcement
Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone
Driving a motor vehicle
Consuming alcohol

What is the nature of the penalty you would choose
(fine/imprisonment/exile/death/other)?

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you've
thought things through quite far enough...


Morris, in your list above, you missed one that hits all of us on this
forum (except for a few trolls):

Use of power tools


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:25:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say,
50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business
of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional
authority to operate.

AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide
health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South
Africa.

Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."

Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it.
I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the
Constitution needs to be changed.

A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40
or less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria
needs to be interpreted to fit today's society.


I do not like seeing my freedoms and economic future eroded because
people who see things your way are unwilling to follow the law to
achieve what they want. We live with a lawless government, a thieving
public, and a permanent whining victim class as a result. Oh, and BTW,
"we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal? I like our healthcare
system - it's just fine with me as it is ... or it least it is better
than anything those morons in D.C. could ever do. You want healthcare
run with the same effectiveness as the people who scan our luggage
at the airport. I don't.


A taste of the futu
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008
Note one of the primary drivers here for a death penalty for the living is
to limit the impact upon the National Health Service; and this coming from
a country that doesn't have the death penalty for even the most vicious of
criminals just to add to the irony.

This is one of those countries that so many are wringing their hands that
we aren't emulating by providing for everyone's health care.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Han wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:6p1iq5-2572.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The
Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further
Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the
hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed
as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether
we are legitimately entitled to it.


I think we are much more alike than you suspect. I am for individual
responsibility, and I do think those who went in over their head should
not
come off scott-free (sp?). But I still think the basic mistake for want
of
a better word is not enough regulation and oversight. In a free market
there should be responsibility (enforced or natural) to prevent excesses
such as the savings and loan debacle, the dotcom bubble and now the
housing
and debt bubble. To let the free market correct itself with boom and bust
is not good governance.


Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman what
with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data collection
down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
get? As Hank Greeneburg stated, "there is no amount of regulation that can
save you from bad management."

The problem here has been the fact that with the government backing these
loans and pushing by regulation or threat the requirement for "affordable
housing" (code for loans to people with little or no ability to repay), the
onus of responsibility was removed from both lenders and borrowers, leaving
the mess at the feet of taxpayers.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Morris, in your list above, you missed one that hits all of us on this
forum (except for a few trolls):

Use of power tools

Eh? Power tools are safe - it's the operators who're dangerous!

(I almost wish I hadn't said that right out loud.)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Morris, in your list above, you missed one that hits all of us on this
forum (except for a few trolls):

Use of power tools

Eh? Power tools are safe - it's the operators who're dangerous!

(I almost wish I hadn't said that right out loud.)



http://www.allmax.com/MILT/

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Mark and/or Juanita wrote:

- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


A taste of the futu

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...Warnock-Dement
ia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008

Note
one of the primary drivers here for a death penalty for the living is
to limit the impact upon the National Health Service; and this coming
from a country that doesn't have the death penalty for even the most
vicious of criminals just to add to the irony.

This is the the widely vilified opinion of one senile British loony.

It takes some tough logic to get from there to:

This is one of those countries that so many are wringing their hands
that
we aren't emulating by providing for everyone's health care.

I think that providing health care only to those who are willing to support
the insurance industry's shareholders is every bit as criminal as what
Baroness Warnock is proposing. But it's the American way, no?

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:56:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Oh, and BTW,
"we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal?

Last I heard Tim, those were not industrialised nations :-).

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:40:42 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:

Use of power tools

Eh? Power tools are safe - it's the operators who're dangerous!

Same thing apples to motorcycles - I've been riding for 57 years without
any adverse results other than a rare case of road rash when I screwed up :-).

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:56:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Oh, and BTW,
"we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal?

Last I heard Tim, those were not industrialised nations :-).


OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
the healthcare system in Canada - a place where I have
multiple family members who work in that system as nurses.
They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
(not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,
sometimes ineffective, and nowhere near as cutting edge as
that horrible profit-motivated system here in the US.
So, I don't even want US healthcare to become the "equivalent"
of the Canadian system.

Look, there is a simple calculus he There is far more demand
for healthcare than supply in the industrial West for the simple
reason the people live a long time. No law, or other forceful
action changes this fact. You can pass laws 'till you are blue
in the face. All it will do is *lower* the level of care that
people currently receive to benefit the people who currently
receive little or no care. I do not want medicine reduced to
a lowest common denominator. I would much rather provide care
for those in real need by means of private charity - a vehicle
in which US citizens excel - than to reduce everything by law to
its lowest possible form.

Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
field.

I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
Americans. I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.
I speak as someone who had to massively change personal behavior
to improve *my* health - which I did. I also, BTW, speak as
someone who has not had healthcare insurance for extended periods
of my lifetime but still managed, somehow, to get medical care
when and as needed without going broke.

P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim;

A couple of years ago the premier of Alberta was bragging that the local
health care service was down to only 400 people who needed bypass
surgery. This was down from several thousand a few years before. They
were making progress unless you were one of the 400.

My wife was diagnosed as requiring bypass surgery. The only reason she
didn't go directly to the OR was because they were working on someone
else. She was the first person the next morning.

Yes we did have insurance and she also worked for the hospital but that
only affected the cost, which was on the order of one dollar. Don't know
what that was for.

Canadian health care is not a panaciea, it has some serious problems
that have to be worked out.

Dave Nagel

BTW; What does this have to do with woodworking?


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:56:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Oh, and BTW,
"we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare"
is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be
the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal?
Last I heard Tim, those were not industrialised nations :-).


OK. Fair enough. I happen to have direct experience with
the healthcare system in Canada - a place where I have
multiple family members who work in that system as nurses.
They are not enthused by the system. By *their* testimony
(not my opinion - theirs), the system is bloated, inefficient,
sometimes ineffective, and nowhere near as cutting edge as
that horrible profit-motivated system here in the US.
So, I don't even want US healthcare to become the "equivalent"
of the Canadian system.

Look, there is a simple calculus he There is far more demand
for healthcare than supply in the industrial West for the simple
reason the people live a long time. No law, or other forceful
action changes this fact. You can pass laws 'till you are blue
in the face. All it will do is *lower* the level of care that
people currently receive to benefit the people who currently
receive little or no care. I do not want medicine reduced to
a lowest common denominator. I would much rather provide care
for those in real need by means of private charity - a vehicle
in which US citizens excel - than to reduce everything by law to
its lowest possible form.

Note that when people need the best possible care, they don't fly
to Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK, or Germany. They come to the US
most of the time. There is a reason for this. The reason is
that the profit motive brings the best and brightest to the playing
field.

I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the
genuinely underprivileged ... and I do, as do millions of
Americans. I am unwilling to see *my* care diminished to help
those whose problems are repetitive and largely self induced.
I speak as someone who had to massively change personal behavior
to improve *my* health - which I did. I also, BTW, speak as
someone who has not had healthcare insurance for extended periods
of my lifetime but still managed, somehow, to get medical care
when and as needed without going broke.

P.S. Given the option, would you rather see the doctor who drives
a 1969 Ford Fairlane, or the doctor who drives a new Benz
every year? I think I'd prefer the Benz driving doc because
it signifies some level of financial achievement, and probably
some level of skill. But that's just me ...