Mark & Juanita wrote:


OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to
private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is
shrinking government and government control of property and
transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism.
The government did not take that land from someone else to give it to
another.

It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent doman
to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to another private
person or corporation.

Mark & Juanita wrote:


For those of you who only get the three-letter news stations and/or
the NYT -- approximately 800k to 1.2M people showed up in D.C. on
Saturday to show their opposition to the health care bills in
Congress. Apparently the three-letter news organizations were too
busy with other stuff to cover this to any great extent.



They had most of their staffs digging into the ACORN business.

No, wait...

HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Greed is good.

One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for
greed, no man would marry, build a house, or father a child."

Another great worthy (Gordon Gekko) said: "The point is, ladies and
gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is
right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the
essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms;
greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward
surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save
[us], but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
To accumulate wealth by ambition and drive is one thing.
To accumulate wealth by extortion, such as Insurance Companies, Oil
Companies, Banks, IRS borders on the criminal.

Absolutely! But it's not the greed that is bad - it is the method of
pursuing it or the results to which it's put that causes the harm.

It's kinda like the "people use guns to kill other people, so let's outlaw the guns"
argument. People are able to use capitalism as a tool to commit evil, so capitalism must be
inherently evil. I hear that's Michael Moore's latest diatribe...

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"HeyBub" wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:


OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to
private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is
shrinking government and government control of property and
transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism.
The government did not take that land from someone else to give it to
another.

It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent doman
to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to another private
person or corporation.

It's worse than that. In the case cited, Thomas Jefferson proposed giving away
land that the government stole from it's previous owners. No imminent domain or
other legal process. Just armed troops.

Of course, that is how most of the world's land has changed hands at some time
or another.

-- Doug

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Jack Stein" wrote:

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

More to the point, what does universal health care have to do with
SOCIALISM?

Lew

Are you sure you really want to ask the question of how the government
taking over 1/7 of the US economy equates to socialism -- the control of
enterprise by the government?

It would be socialism, if it were happening. I haven't been able to find
anything in any of the proposed bills that takes over private enterprise. Could
you post some references?
Thanks,
Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:


OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to
private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is
shrinking government and government control of property and
transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism.
The government did not take that land from someone else to give it
to another.

It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent
doman to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to
another private person or corporation.

It's worse than that. In the case cited, Thomas Jefferson proposed
giving away land that the government stole from it's previous owners.
No imminent domain or other legal process. Just armed troops.

Of course, that is how most of the world's land has changed hands at
some time or another.

I hate to be a spelling Nazi but it's _em_inent domain. For some reason
seeing it spelled "imminent" is bugging me like nails on a blackboard. "His
land was in imminent danger of eminent domain" might be a way to remember
it.

On Sep 17, 11:17*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
[snipped]

So."Give me your house and all your assets or you will die" is
appropriate 'free enterprise'?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:10:21 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

If you don't think that land redistribution and socialism are bedmates,
you need to read a little more history :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:35:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Seems like that is shrinking government
and government control of property and transferring it to private hands,
the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land
from someone else to give it to another.

Tell that to the Indians :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"J. Clarke" wrote:

I hate to be a spelling Nazi but it's _em_inent domain. For some reason
seeing it spelled "imminent" is bugging me like nails on a blackboard. "His
land was in imminent danger of eminent domain" might be a way to remember
it.

Your point is eminently correct. Do you know of a web sight that shows the
difference?

-- Doug

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:35:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Seems like that is shrinking government
and government control of property and transferring it to private hands,
the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land
from someone else to give it to another.

Tell that to the Indians :-).


Worcester vs. Georgia (1832)

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

I hate to be a spelling Nazi but it's _em_inent domain. For some
reason seeing it spelled "imminent" is bugging me like nails on a
blackboard. "His land was in imminent danger of eminent domain"
might be a way to remember it.

Your point is eminently correct. Do you know of a web sight that
shows the difference?

Well you might sight the difference at the WSU site,
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/eminent.html. For sight and site I cite
http://homepage.smc.edu/quizzes/chen...sitesight.html.

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 17, 11:17 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
[snipped]

So."Give me your house and all your assets or you will die" is
appropriate 'free enterprise'?

Well, yeah. Nobody is FORCING you like they are with increased taxes to pay
for somebody else's stuff.

It's your choice.

Besides, if alive, you can always accumulate more assets and another house.
Possibly by going into the health-care business.

HeyBub wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:


OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to
private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is
shrinking government and government control of property and
transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism.
The government did not take that land from someone else to give it to
another.

It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent doman
to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to another
private person or corporation.

In this case, it was not eminent domain, this was frontier land. ... and
no, Doug Johnson, I'm not going to engage you on your silly statements
below.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

HeyBub wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:


For those of you who only get the three-letter news stations and/or
the NYT -- approximately 800k to 1.2M people showed up in D.C. on
Saturday to show their opposition to the health care bills in
Congress. Apparently the three-letter news organizations were too
busy with other stuff to cover this to any great extent.



They had most of their staffs digging into the ACORN business.

No, wait...


LOL.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need much
imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their current

I don't believe that 85% bull**** for one second, but just for the sake of
argument, let's assume it's true. The US has a population of 300 million.
That leaves 45 million people that are unsatisfied with your healthcare
setup. That's a god awful lot of people who feel they're not receiving
adequate healthcare.

45 million. Use a little perspective will you?

Phisherman wrote:

Jack
Got Change: Individual control ==== Government control!
http://jbstein.com


Jack, sorry to hear about your wife. She is very lucky to have a
responsive emergency room. They are not all alike.

No, they are not all alike and yes, she, and we are lucky. We are lucky
to have 10 or 20 hospitals within 10 minutes to CHOOSE from. I could
have taken her to any of them. We are lucky to have a slew of doctors
available to us. The hospital I took her to recommended a doctor that
saw her the next day, and he saw her and recommended we go to another
doctor that specialized in what was needed, and that was at a different
hospital than he worked. He called her and set it up for us to see her
immediately, and he didn't even know the doctor, just knew of her. She
was lucky our insurance company actually had a phone number that someone
answered, and that whomever answered, actually listened to the doctor
and approved a procedure that was still considered experimental and NOT
normally covered.

You will never convince me any government bureaucracy
would even answer the phone, let alone make a logical decision. It once
took my brother 1 YEAR to get my elderly aunts stolen social security
check replaced. That took uncountable phone calls 4 sets of "not
received" forms filled out, and 2 calls to Senators office.

Also, this was NOT life threatening, in fact, while both eyes were
burned, only one eye was on the brink of blindness.
Yet and still, no waits to speak of... I would hate to think what would
have happened in England, or Canada, or anywhere else that government
controls health care.

It is very sad folks are turning this into a party or race thing. The
more Obama pushes health care, the more people dislike it. Go Obama!

I hear you.

--
Jack
Got change: Left Wing Media ====== Fringe Media!
http://jbstein.com

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

This would be no different if you 80 year old mom needed a hip
replacement or cancer therapy, or any other type of procedure the
government felt was not cost effective or worth the expenditure. You
can live in denial all you want, won't change a thing.

Flat not true. My mom had two hip replacements, one at 80 and one at 82.
Medicare ("the government") approved and paid for both of them without the
slightest problem.

Yes, well currently Medicare is underfunded by how many trillions of
dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need much
imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their current
care will soon be getting screwed as the government is FORCED to reign
in costs. This is a given, not much thought needed to see it won't
work, and doesn't work any where else. True, some work may need done on
the 15-20% that are not happy, but I can tell you that before Clinton
****ed with Medicaid, most likely with the goal of screwing the poor
folk so they would support full socialized medicine, everyone was
covered in the US.

I'm glad your wife is doing well. Those things are scary.

Thanks, but I'm sure the future will be even more scary. Getting old
ain't for sissy's...

For anyone following this, here is what she did... She was doing a load
of laundry and had the lid up on the washer. She picked up a gallon of
bleach in a plastic container and it slipped out of her hand, and hit
the side of the washer, squirting out a huge amount of bleach directly
in her eyes. The bleach burnt the top layer of her eyes right off, more
in one than the other, but it was really, really painful, and really
really dangerous. She was very lucky.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Control ======= Government Control!
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:

Yes, well currently Medicare is underfunded by how many trillions of
dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need much
imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their current
care will soon be getting screwed as the government is FORCED to reign
in costs. This is a given, not much thought needed to see it won't
work, and doesn't work any where else. True, some work may need done
on the 15-20% that are not happy, but I can tell you that before
Clinton ****ed with Medicaid, most likely with the goal of screwing
the poor folk so they would support full socialized medicine,
everyone was covered in the US.

I predict: The government will NOT reign in costs significantly. The
government will INCREASE what workers pay into Medicare.


For anyone following this, here is what she did... She was doing a
load of laundry and had the lid up on the washer. She picked up a
gallon of bleach in a plastic container and it slipped out of her
hand, and hit the side of the washer, squirting out a huge amount of
bleach directly in her eyes. The bleach burnt the top layer of her
eyes right off, more in one than the other, but it was really, really
painful, and really really dangerous. She was very lucky.



She placed a tremendous load on the health-care delivery system when a very
simple government requirment of eye-wash fountains in every household would
have not only saved her the pain and inconvenience, but would have held down
health-care costs.

Robatoy wrote:

To accumulate wealth by ambition and drive is one thing.
To accumulate wealth by extortion, such as Insurance Companies, Oil
Companies, Banks, IRS borders on the criminal.

Oil companies "extort" about a 7% profit from Americans. For this, the
customers get thousands of products made from oil. They get fuel for
their cars at a cost far less per gallon than they can buy a bottle of
water.

The government however makes about 18% on profit the money the American
oil companies make. If you are looking for extortion, look at the
government. The governments cap and tax program will extort another
couple of thousand dollars a year from every man, woman and child in the
US. I don't know much about banks and Insurance companies, you could be
right, but that would fly in the face of history...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote:

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

More to the point, what does universal health care have to do with
SOCIALISM?

More to the point, what does government control of the health care
system have to do with socialism.... EVERYTHING!

--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors ==== Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote in message

Thats because you don't understand how government defines decreased costs.


Same way they save you money. They want to increase your tax by 50%. People
scream and they only tax you an additional 25%, thus they SAVED you 25%.
Please be grateful for that.

Upscale wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need much
imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their current

I don't believe that 85% bull**** for one second, but just for the sake of
argument, let's assume it's true.

Yeah, it is hard to believe that 85% of people anywhere are happy about
anything. I'd bet over half of the 15% ain't happy about anything in
their life, and the other half probably are extremely unlucky and got
tangled up with routine incompetence. At any rate, the 85% that are
happy with their health care are in the know, because they get the best
health care on earth, even if not always perfect. When the socialists
manage to change our system to one like yours the bad news is then our
system will suck as bad as yours, but the good news is, you will not be
able to get any better treatment here than you do in Canada.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individualism ====== Socialism!
http://jbstein.com

HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Yes, well currently Medicare is underfunded by how many trillions of
dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need much
imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their current
care will soon be getting screwed as the government is FORCED to reign
in costs. This is a given, not much thought needed to see it won't
work, and doesn't work any where else. True, some work may need done
on the 15-20% that are not happy, but I can tell you that before
Clinton ****ed with Medicaid, most likely with the goal of screwing
the poor folk so they would support full socialized medicine,
everyone was covered in the US.

I predict: The government will NOT reign in costs significantly. The
government will INCREASE what workers pay into Medicare.

Thats because you don't understand how government defines decreased
costs. They will first decrease service (incompetence related, not
necessarily cost related) then by increasing costs by 49% instead of
50%, they will claim they are reducing costs, and THATS why services
were decreased.

She placed a tremendous load on the health-care delivery system when a very
simple government requirment of eye-wash fountains in every household would
have not only saved her the pain and inconvenience, but would have held down
health-care costs.

I probably should have sued the company for not putting adequate warning
labels on the container, like wear full face mask protection when using,
and the government, for not requiring the eye-wash in every home....

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Anyway, greed is always bad, by definition.

One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for
greed, no man would marry, build a house, or father a child."
Well, I think Ramban should look up the meaning of the word greed.
Greed is seldom a good thing.

So greed can sometimes be a good thing? That's a start.

No, I misspoke there. Greed is never a good thing, by definition. I
should have said, and what I meant to say, is greed can have some good
results, like John Martha's greed results in a hell of a nice airport
for the 20 people that use it to fly to Washington every day.

Actually the word the Ramban used was "Loshan Hora" (the evil inclination).
His theory was that greed is a natural human emotion, that human emotions
are creations of God and that God does not make junk. It's what you DO with
these natural inclinations that determines the good or evil, not the
inclination itself.

Well, greed is when you take a normal human emotions like the desire to
succeed, and take it to the extreme at any cost.

Think of greed as a gun. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Think of sex as being good, normal human desire, and rape being the
extreme at any cost desire (greed)

Here's one example: The poor cannot contribute meaningfully to their
fellow
men. I ask you, who has helped humanity more through works of charity:
Mother Theresa or Bill Gates?

Certainly not Bill Gates. Gates is a perfect example of how one man, or
companies greed can have some good things result, yet overall, it is
really, really bad for mankind. So, in MicroSofts case, the illegal
monopoly resulting from his illegal business practices resulted in
everyone using a common operating system. That can be viewed as good.
The bad thing is the worlds worst OS is now used by everyone, one that
is incompatible with everything else, and one that has cost the world
incalculable trillions of dollars in lost productivity, development and
design.

I think you may be suffering from Microsoft Deragement Syndrome (MDS).
Unfortunately, there is not presently a pill for that condition.

I guess reality is a condition, not sure I'd take a pill for it. Many
do I guess.

I believe Microsoft has been sued for anti-trust violations in the U.S., but
never found to be in violation.

Microsoft has been sued. The big one, the one that they lost and would
have cost them dearly, and benefited the world immensely, was mitigated
greatly when the DOJ for some unknown reason (payoff is the first thing
that jumps to my mind) appeals their victory when the judge decided not
only was MS in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act, but that the
remedy sought by the DOJ was grievously understated. How much it cost
Gates to have the victors appeal their HUGE victory is unknown. I think
it is unheard of in judicial circles for the victors to appeal.

In fact no monopoly in the USA has ever been
found to have violated anti-trust laws after having achieved that monopoly
position solely by internal growth (those that have been so deemed usually
got that way through acquisitions).

Microsoft got that way via preventing sales of competing products with
illegal, exclusionary tactics. Everyone at the time knew this, and the
DOJ proved it in court. Unfortunately, greed and corruption overruled
the victory, and the world has suffered, and computing was set back
probably 50 years, maybe more.

That said, most monopolies are good for the consumer.

No, they are not.

The poster-boy for
monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon
to five cents and did it in only three years. The people who were involved
in the whale oil business screamed, but for the rest of the country night
was turned into day by the use of Kerosene lamps. In Standard Oil's case, it
was not the consumer who was hurt by Standard Oil's practices, it was the
competitors.

Left unchecked, as in Microsoft's case, you get garbage products, and
high prices.

The monopolies that are universally condemned are generally those that
achieve their monopoly position due to government imposition (public
utilities come to mind, like cable TV).

Yes, of course. Americans like competition. When there is no
competition, as when Government runs gambling, or controls business like
utilities, people are suspicious, and well they should be. Controlled
monopolies sometimes are a necessary evil, as in utilities.

Greed does present a greater hazard that can result in calamity. So can
dynamite. When either is used properly, good can result. One just has to
exercise more caution with greed than with, say, charity. Same with
dynamite.

Yeah, and rape could result in a future president of the US. Still,
rape is seldom, make that never, a good thing, regardless if anything
good comes of it.

--
Jack
Got Change: Van Guard ======= Van Jones!
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Thats because you don't understand how government defines decreased
costs.

Same way they save you money. They want to increase your tax by 50%.
People scream and they only tax you an additional 25%, thus they SAVED
you 25%. Please be grateful for that.

Yeah, thats one way. Another is they say something will cost a $1trillion
but it will really cost $9trillion, thus saving you 8 trillion right up
front.


When I lived in Philadelphia they wanted to build a new sports stadium
(Veterans Stadium). The voters had a choice. Regular open stadium, $25
million or a domed stadium for $50 million. The city compromised and gave
us the best of both worlds, a regular open stadium for $50 million.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Thats because you don't understand how government defines decreased costs.

Same way they save you money. They want to increase your tax by 50%. People
scream and they only tax you an additional 25%, thus they SAVED you 25%.
Please be grateful for that.

Yeah, thats one way. Another is they say something will cost a
$1trillion but it will really cost $9trillion, thus saving you 8
trillion right up front.

--
Jack
Got Change: Seeds of Prosperity ======= ACORNS of Thievery!
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:

Here's one example: The poor cannot contribute meaningfully to
their fellow
men. I ask you, who has helped humanity more through works of
charity: Mother Theresa or Bill Gates?

Certainly not Bill Gates. Gates is a perfect example of how one man,
or companies greed can have some good things result, yet overall, it
is really, really bad for mankind. So, in MicroSofts case, the
illegal monopoly resulting from his illegal business practices
resulted in everyone using a common operating system. That can be
viewed as good. The bad thing is the worlds worst OS is now used by
everyone, one that is incompatible with everything else, and one that
has cost the world incalculable trillions of dollars in lost
productivity, development and design.

The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation has distributed over $11 billion dollars
worldwide to various projects.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

Mother Theresa - aside from being a role model worthy of the greatest
admiration - during her entire life probably helped 10,000 people. With
medicines, food, clothing, and compassion. She saved maybe 5,000 lives and
gave hope to thousands more.

The Gates Foundation eclipses her work by orders of magnitude. Every day.

Point is, no matter how motivated, a poor person can only help a few of his
or her destitute neighbors. A rich person can do so very much more.

It's the same with countries. How many relief supplies did Bangladesh or
Somalia send to the Tsunami victims in Indonesia?


Microsoft has been sued. The big one, the one that they lost and
would have cost them dearly, and benefited the world immensely, was
mitigated greatly when the DOJ for some unknown reason (payoff is the
first thing that jumps to my mind) appeals their victory when the
judge decided not only was MS in violation of the Sherman anti-trust
act, but that the remedy sought by the DOJ was grievously
understated. How much it cost Gates to have the victors appeal their
HUGE victory is unknown. I think it is unheard of in judicial
circles for the victors to appeal.

So, the final result was discarded by the judicial system, yes? As to your
supposition that the DOJ and the appellate courts were compromised, the same
claim could be made of the trial court. Both claims are supposition.

As for the victor appealing, it happens all the time. Appeals are based on a
misapplication of the law. Either side can, and often does, appeal when the
law is not followed. The DOJ, especially, has a duty to see that the law is
followed, irrespective of the results. If the DOJ felt there was a
miscarriage of justice, it was their duty to appeal!


In fact no monopoly in the USA has ever been
found to have violated anti-trust laws after having achieved that
monopoly position solely by internal growth (those that have been so
deemed usually got that way through acquisitions).

Microsoft got that way via preventing sales of competing products with
illegal, exclusionary tactics. Everyone at the time knew this, and
the DOJ proved it in court. Unfortunately, greed and corruption
overruled the victory, and the world has suffered, and computing was
set back probably 50 years, maybe more.

So the ultimate decision was unpalatable to you and you attribute the final
result to "greed and corruption" rather than the rule of law. Heh!


That said, most monopolies are good for the consumer.

No, they are not.

I can be persuaded. Give us a few examples of an unregulated monopoly being
provably bad for the consumer. Not what "might" have been, but what is or
was. For example, you cannot prove that the computing world would be better
today had Microsoft been broken up or otherwise bothered - the world may
just as well be worse off.

I would think your best approach to this request would be a situation where
there were two aggressive competitors but, for some reason not involving its
competitor, one of the companies disappeared. What happened to the market
with the remaining company having all the business? Did it gouge its
customers? Or did it lower the price of its product in the hopes of gaining
new customers (As did Standard Oil in the case of Kerosene)?

That said, Microsoft is its own biggest competitor! If it can't produce a
better product in its next rendition of an operating system (or whatever),
its revenue stream vanishes. We're not talking bread here; we're talking a
"durable good." Actually an operating system is more "durable" than the
common things we think of, like refrigerators or cars.



The poster-boy for
monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price of Kerosene from
$3.00/gallon to five cents and did it in only three years. The
people who were involved in the whale oil business screamed, but for
the rest of the country night was turned into day by the use of
Kerosene lamps. In Standard Oil's case, it was not the consumer who
was hurt by Standard Oil's practices, it was the competitors.

Left unchecked, as in Microsoft's case, you get garbage products, and
high prices.

Bottom line: What we have is a willing buyer and a willing seller. There is
no compulsion on the part of Microsoft and no despair on the part of the
consumer. Each enter into the transactions willingly and both leave the
transaction better off than before it took place. Wealth has been created.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
manage to change our system to one like yours the bad news is then our
system will suck as bad as yours, but the good news is, you will not be
able to get any better treatment here than you do in Canada.

I happen to like our medical system. And believe me, I use it so I know
about it. Obviously, you thinking it sucks means that you're opinion is
based solely on hearsay without any practical experience. Not surprisingly,
you're opinion is popular among most of the people in the US who happen to
like your system. And just as obviously, that opinion is carried by those
who can afford your system. It most certainly isn't 85% if the population,
not even close to it.

Upscale wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need
much imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their
current

I don't believe that 85% bull**** for one second, but just for the
sake of argument, let's assume it's true. The US has a population of
300 million. That leaves 45 million people that are unsatisfied with
your healthcare setup. That's a god awful lot of people who feel
they're not receiving adequate healthcare.

45 million. Use a little perspective will you?

The ~85% figure of people being "satisfied" with their health insurance (not
care) is correct. There have been at least three large surveys that all come
up with about the same figure.

Still, there's a difference between "feeling" the health care was inadequate
and not actually receiving proper health care. Probably that percentage of
folks are just malcontents who, upon receiving a free bar of gold, would
complain that it wasn't in a box. In other words, the patient's impression
is not the best metric for deciding "proper."

I might be hopping mad over a leg amputation, but medically it may have been
the proper treatment.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need
much imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their
current

I don't believe that 85% bull**** for one second, but just for the
sake of argument, let's assume it's true. The US has a population of
300 million. That leaves 45 million people that are unsatisfied with
your healthcare setup. That's a god awful lot of people who feel
they're not receiving adequate healthcare.

45 million. Use a little perspective will you?

The ~85% figure of people being "satisfied" with their health insurance
(not care) is correct. There have been at least three large surveys that
all come up with about the same figure.

Still, there's a difference between "feeling" the health care was
inadequate and not actually receiving proper health care. Probably that
percentage of folks are just malcontents who, upon receiving a free bar of
gold, would complain that it wasn't in a box. In other words, the
patient's impression is not the best metric for deciding "proper."

I might be hopping mad over a leg amputation, but medically it may have
been the proper treatment.


One thing I have learned about insurance is that there are different
"standards of care".
The dentist, under my old dental insurance, insisted on pulling a tooth and
replacing it
with a bridge rather than providing a root canal and a crown. I found a
new dentist,
paid for the root canal and crown out of my own pocket, and dropped the
dental insurance...

I think the latter process was too time consuming for the doctor, whom from
me, made
most of his money from me collecting my monthly premiums.

Bill

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Thats because you don't understand how government defines decreased
costs.

Same way they save you money. They want to increase your tax by 50%.
People scream and they only tax you an additional 25%, thus they SAVED
you 25%. Please be grateful for that.

Yeah, thats one way. Another is they say something will cost a
$1trillion but it will really cost $9trillion, thus saving you 8 trillion
right up front.


When I lived in Philadelphia they wanted to build a new sports stadium
(Veterans Stadium). The voters had a choice. Regular open stadium, $25
million or a domed stadium for $50 million. The city compromised and gave
us the best of both worlds, a regular open stadium for $50 million.

Speaking of wildly successful government programs, what's the status of
the Big Dig? Anywhere close to done?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:42:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Thats because you don't understand how government defines decreased
costs.

Same way they save you money. They want to increase your tax by 50%.
People scream and they only tax you an additional 25%, thus they SAVED
you 25%. Please be grateful for that.

Yeah, thats one way. Another is they say something will cost a
$1trillion but it will really cost $9trillion, thus saving you 8 trillion
right up front.


When I lived in Philadelphia they wanted to build a new sports stadium
(Veterans Stadium). The voters had a choice. Regular open stadium, $25
million or a domed stadium for $50 million. The city compromised and gave
us the best of both worlds, a regular open stadium for $50 million.

Speaking of wildly successful government programs, what's the status of
the Big Dig? Anywhere close to done?

Done? It's so done it's already coming down.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Speaking of wildly successful government programs, what's the status of
the Big Dig? Anywhere close to done?



Pretty much done. They are repairing the parts falling down now.

The drive to the airport is a hell of a lot better though, as long as
nothing falls and kills you along the way. A lot of contractors made a lot
of money from that project.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Yes, I've heard lots about it, long waits to MRI's, higher death rates
from all sorts of things.

Yes, you've heard second, third and fourth hand, but know ****. Let me
introduce you to Tim Daneliuk.

Your responses and replies are the frothing at the mouth version his
mindset. Just like him, you excel in whining and complaining about
government taking you to the poor house. That's what happens to people like
you. Enjoy!

Douglas Johnson wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Are you sure you really want to ask the question of how the
government taking over 1/7 of the US economy equates to socialism --
the control of enterprise by the government?

It would be socialism, if it were happening. I haven't been able to
find anything in any of the proposed bills that takes over private
enterprise. Could you post some references?
Thanks,
Doug

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. This isn't about what has
been proposed, this is about the pleasure some folks take in being enraged
over what they'd like to think is being proposed.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

When I lived in Philadelphia they wanted to build a new sports stadium
(Veterans Stadium). The voters had a choice. Regular open stadium, $25
million or a domed stadium for $50 million. The city compromised and gave
us the best of both worlds, a regular open stadium for $50 million.

In Pittsburgh, the government (communist *******s) wanted to build 2
stadiums, for the Steelers and the Pirates. People bitched up a storm,
so the communist government figured they would put it in a referendum,
something they must have thought would pass because everyone on earth
knows how crazy the 'Burg" is about the Steelers... well, to the
surprise and dismay of the communist government, it was voted DOWN,
soundly. That even surprised me....

Anyway, the communist local government then decided to take it to the
communist state government, and somehow, (I can't explain it), we not
only got the two stadiums, one for the multi-billionaire Roonies, and
one for Pirates as well. Our communist state has a 6% sales tax on
everything, but the local communists added 1% just for the pricks in
Allegheny County that voted AGAINST state owned stadiums, get to pay 7%
sales tax.
The really neat thing is if you buy a car in a neighboring county, they
cut your balls off or something, for tax evasion...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
manage to change our system to one like yours the bad news is then our
system will suck as bad as yours, but the good news is, you will not be
able to get any better treatment here than you do in Canada.

I happen to like our medical system. And believe me, I use it so I know
about it. Obviously, you thinking it sucks means that you're opinion is
based solely on hearsay without any practical experience.

Yes, I've heard lots about it, long waits to MRI's, higher death rates
from all sorts of things.

Not sure about Upscale's experiences, but I needed an MRI once, took
less that 12 hours in Canada (Toronto area). Exceptional service I
don't know. As to the death rates, there are studies that go both ways.

Add to that my first and second hand
experiences with government ****ing up every thing they touch and
it doesn't take much thought to see why Americans are happy with what
they have rather than getting what you have.

Government ****ing things up? Want to looks at banks or Enron, the
government doesn't have an exclusive right to make a mess of things. I
submit any big institution can make a mess of things.

--
Froz...

HeyBub wrote:

The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation has distributed over $11 billion dollars
worldwide to various projects.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

Well they can afford it after raping the human race with their
anti-competitive monopolistic crap-ware.

Point is, no matter how motivated, a poor person can only help a few of his
or her destitute neighbors. A rich person can do so very much more.

Thats not the point. Rich is fine, but if you get rich by underhanded
and illegal means, rich is not fine.

Microsoft has been sued. The big one, the one that they lost and
would have cost them dearly, and benefited the world immensely, was
mitigated greatly when the DOJ for some unknown reason (payoff is the
first thing that jumps to my mind) appeals their victory when the
judge decided not only was MS in violation of the Sherman anti-trust
act, but that the remedy sought by the DOJ was grievously
understated. How much it cost Gates to have the victors appeal their
HUGE victory is unknown. I think it is unheard of in judicial
circles for the victors to appeal.

So, the final result was discarded by the judicial system, yes?

No! The award granted was reduced to what the DOJ originally asked,
even though the judge hearing the case said WTF, you are not asking
enough to make things right.

As to your
supposition that the DOJ and the appellate courts were compromised, the same
claim could be made of the trial court. Both claims are supposition.

Yes, supposition. Did I make it look like God came down and ratted them
out? I just figured it out myself. Take a huge, illegal monopoly, a
multi-billionaire, a corrupt government and some really weird things
like a plaintiff appealing because they won more than they sued for, and
poof, an easy supposition.

As for the victor appealing, it happens all the time. Appeals are based on a
misapplication of the law. Either side can, and often does, appeal when the
law is not followed.

Bull****! I've never once heard of a victor appealing a court decision
to grant them MORE redress than they asked for.

The DOJ, especially, has a duty to see that the law is
followed, irrespective of the results. If the DOJ felt there was a
miscarriage of justice, it was their duty to appeal!

There was a miscarriage of justice. The court ruled in the DOJ's favor,
The DOJ was ****ed because they asked for xxx and the judge said no,
this is not enough, MicroSoft is SO BAD you need to refigure the damage
done to the American Public... I suppose THAT cost Gates a bundle
(supposition again)

In fact no monopoly in the USA has ever been
found to have violated anti-trust laws after having achieved that
monopoly position solely by internal growth (those that have been so
deemed usually got that way through acquisitions).

Microsoft got that way via preventing sales of competing products with
illegal, exclusionary tactics. Everyone at the time knew this, and
the DOJ proved it in court. Unfortunately, greed and corruption
overruled the victory, and the world has suffered, and computing was
set back probably 50 years, maybe more.

So the ultimate decision was unpalatable to you and you attribute the final
result to "greed and corruption" rather than the rule of law. Heh!

Doesn't matter much about me, but it was unpalatable to the judge that
heard all the testimony and ruled against MS. Something that blatantly
handled can only be explained away via greed and corruption.

That said, most monopolies are good for the consumer.
No, they are not.

I can be persuaded. Give us a few examples of an unregulated monopoly being
provably bad for the consumer. Not what "might" have been, but what is or
was.

Impossible to prove what didn't happen would be good, bad or
indifferent. On the other hand, it is possible to see what happens when
a monopoly is ended.

For example, you cannot prove that the computing world would be better
today had Microsoft been broken up or otherwise bothered - the world may
just as well be worse off.

Most everyone intimately familiar with the various OS's know how
wretched DOS/Windows is and has been for most of it's life. Those that
don't either have little experience, or their hand firmly in MS pocket.

That said, Microsoft is its own biggest competitor! If it can't produce a
better product in its next rendition of an operating system (or whatever),
its revenue stream vanishes.

Baloney! Most every computer sold comes with MS OS.

We're not talking bread here; we're talking a
"durable good." Actually an operating system is more "durable" than the
common things we think of, like refrigerators or cars.


Doesn't matter.

The poster-boy for
monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price of Kerosene from
$3.00/gallon to five cents and did it in only three years. The
people who were involved in the whale oil business screamed, but for
the rest of the country night was turned into day by the use of
Kerosene lamps. In Standard Oil's case, it was not the consumer who
was hurt by Standard Oil's practices, it was the competitors.
Left unchecked, as in Microsoft's case, you get garbage products, and
high prices.

Bottom line: What we have is a willing buyer and a willing seller.

No, what we have is a captive buyer.

There is no compulsion on the part of Microsoft and no despair on the part of the
consumer.

There has been a HUGE compulsion by Microsoft to stomp on and prevent
competition and insure no one gets it's foot in the door. The courts
have ruled on this so it's not something new, it's been going on for 30
years.

Each enter into the transactions willingly and both leave the
transaction better off than before it took place. Wealth has been created.

Yeah, wealth has been created. That's the whole idea behind illegal
monopolies. Most people enter into the transaction willingly because
the don't know any better, and those that know better, like me, have no
or very little choice.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com