Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97568 is a reply to message #97558] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

> Dan Espen wrote:

>

>>

>> Money doesn't disappear after it gets spent.

>>

>

> There is one exception and that is when there is

> an imbalance in the balance of payments in

> imported goods money is spent and then goes

> into circulation in a foreign country.

>

> The money doesn't disappear but it no longer

> is in this economy.

>

> China turned that into an art form a few years

> ago because they sold goods at cost and then

> profited by the additional cash flow in their

> economy.


True enough. I suppose some day that money will reappear in the form of
purchased US companies and real estate.

--
Dan Espen
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97569 is a reply to message #97551] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lawrence Statton is currently offline  Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>> I dunno. I know a

>> * guy *

>> who makes a good living as a MUMPS programmer.


>

> I'll bet

> *he/she*

> even knows what a $HOROLOG is...


I'm as open-minded as the next person, but I think "guy" really
doesn't need to be qualified as he/she. Although, I did know a
BRILLIANT programmer many years ago that was M -> F transexual. He
(later she) took probably more ribbing than was called for, but did
keep a sense of humor about it.

--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97570 is a reply to message #97392] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C9CC596856@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>> On 17-Jul-13 08:16, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> On 16-Jul-13 07:22, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> >> On 15-Jul-13 07:55, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >>> that's the prolbem. The people in charge of governments

>>>> >>> spend three times what they take in, no matter how much money

>>>> >>> is received.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> The FY2013 federal budget has $3.8T of spending for $2.9T in

>>>> >> revenues, which is not even close to three to one.

>>>> >

>>>> > Now count Social Security,

>>>>

>>>> That's included in both above numbers.

>>>

>>> OK. SS usually isn't.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> > the now-delayed medical insurance sosts,

>>>>

>>>> You mean Obamacare, which by House Republicans' own admission will

>>>> actually _save_ the govt money?

>>>

>>> You don't get it. If money is "saved", Congress will spend 3x the

>>> "saved" money. That's how they write their bills. They add riders

>>> which will "take care" of the savings. When two or more of these

>>> riders are added to a bill and then it becomes law, there is no

>>> savings but a triple increase in expenditures.

>>

>> The Affordable Care Act as passed and signed into law _reduced_ the

>> federal deficit.

>

> That was the day it was passed. There are extra laws being passed

> after that which takes care of the pieces which would have caused

> the ACA to cause a huge deficit. IIR the first one passed was

> paying the doctors.

>

>

>

>> Even its staunchest opponents--the very ones whose

>> propaganda you're parroting below--have admitted that.

>>

>> However, now you're backpedaling on your claim the govt spends $3 for

>> every $1 it collects, which is patently untrue and easily disproven.

>

> Then you didn't read what I meant. When Congress sees that $1 is getting

> "saved", they start to think that they can spend it elsewhere. By the

> time they're done, that $1 ends up being spent 3 times, thus, tripling

> the amount saved. The Mass. legislature did this one all the time.

>

>

>> Now you're claiming that they increase spending $3 for every $1 in

>> savings, which is also patently untrue and easily disproven.

>>

>> Congress is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, to be sure, but they're not

>> quite as bad as you're painting them.


> Then why is the US on the brink of bankruptcy?


It isn't, and nothing even remotely like that either.

Its just another Limbaugh lie mindlessly respouted.

> Take a look at how the money which the US took in

> from the auto bailout. They spent it> three times over


Another bare faced lie.

> and the original money was borrowed;

> it didn't come from revenues.


They got it all back so there was no problem with borrowing it.

>>>> > bailouts,

>>>>

>>>> AFAIK, there are none in the FY2013 budget--or proposed

>>>> off-budget.

>>>

>>> Where is funding for Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac coming from? They

>>> are still in deep shit.

>>

>> They've been in deep shit for a long time.

>

> And the policies which got them there are still active.


Its just another Limbaugh lie mindlessly respouted.

> Those toxic CDOs have not gone away.


No one is stupid enough to give them AAA ratings anymore,
so no one is stupid enough to buy them anymore.

>>> Consider the losses created with the S&L

>>> crisis in the 80s. Have those debts been paid off?


>> I thought that the FDIC and Federal Reserve, which are _not_ part of

>> the federal government, were the ones that bailed out the FSLIC?


> Not the FDIC. but even so where did those entites get their money?

> The US taxpayer.


No, China buying US Treasurys. That’s what the deficit means.

>> Either way, no federal debt from the 1980s has been paid off because

>> Congress hasn't had a balanced budget since long before then.


>> I'll give the buffoons credit for almost doing it under Clinton--close

>> enough that both sides lied about achieving it and most of the public

>> bought it. However, Dubya started two unfunded wars while Congress

>> gave out trillions in unfunded corporate welfare and unfunded tax cuts

>> for the rich, which returned the deficit to "normal". Buffoons.


> Not buffoons; very dangerous people with 100% reality filters.


Just like yours.

>>>> > and whatever else is going to be spent in the long-term.

>>>>

>>>> Congress could do any variety of things in the future; however, you

>>>> have accused them of spending $3 for every $1 in tax revenue, which

>>>> AFAIK has _never_ been true. Even our most leftist politicians

>>>> have never proposed anything even remotely approaching that.

>>>

>>> See above. A lot of legislatures are doing that.

>>

>> Really? Please provide an actual example.


> For the US Congress consider the money they got back from the bailout.


Didn’t happen with that.

> Mass legislature used the _future_ money they got from the

> anti-tobacco law suit and spent that three times over. If you

> borrow money using the same future income as collateral and

> plan to use the future income to pay off the debt, you are

> spending the money as many times as you borrow against it.


Wrong.

>> My state legislature recently passed a balanced budget--as

>> required by state constitution. I've heard other states have

>> similar requirements, but I don't know how many.


> There is a difference between a yearly balanced budget

> and borrowing against future income thrice over.


Congress doesn’t do that.

> Only the interest is shown on the yearly budget.


Utterly mangled all over again.

>>>> >>> Voters and the rest have come to expect all freebies from

>>>> >>> the government.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Especially big business, which gets hundreds of billions in

>>>> >> corporate welfare and tax loopholes.

>>>> >

>>>> > What does big business do with monies not handed over to the

>>>> > governments? letmesee....oh, they pay out wages to the people

>>>> > who work for them.

>>>>

>>>> Income taxes only apply to profits, which is _after_ wages are

>>>> paid--even the ridiculous salaries and bonuses that executives pay

>>>> themselves.

>>>

>>> But your proposals are requiring that profits be "controlled" to a

>>> low level or none.

>>

>> No, I just want mega-corporations to pay (at least) the same taxes that

>> small businesses are required to pay--similar to how I want the rich to

>> pay (at least) the same taxes as the middle class.

>>

>> I favor progressive taxes for fairly obvious and logical reasons, so I'd

>> like the former to pay more than the latter, but right now we haven't

>> even worked our way up to merely regressive.


> The annual reports I receive show companies paying income tax and other

> taxes.


Have a look at Apple and Google sometime.

> I have yet to see one which has reported paying US$0.00.


Yeah, they obviously try to hide that.

> Maybe I should be asking about the myth

> that big corporations pay 0 income tax.


Taint a myth with Apple and Google, it’s a fact.

>>>> >> ... except that the CBO's studies show that the rich _don't_

>>>> >> spend their money; they mostly hoard it.

>>>> >

>>>> > Where? Their mattresses? That's just complete nonsense.

>>>>

>>>> Take it up with the CBO.

>>>

>>> Then the corruption has infected the CBO. It's complete

>>> nonsense.... or the term "spend" means not investing.

>>

>> You call it corruption, but they've produced reports on exactly how they

>> calculated that effect, which to date no economist in the world has even

>> refuted, much less disproven.


> Economists don't seem to know how work is done.

> Very few seem to go beyond the book learning.


Even sillier.

>>>> >> That same amount of money in the hands of the working classes

>>>> >> (or the govt) generates far more economic activity--and

>>>> >> therefore real wealth.

>>>> >

>>>> > Those working classes work for companies you want to punish.

>>>>

>>>> I don't want to "punish" anyone. However, taxes _are_ necessary to

>>>> fund public services, and IMHO the levying of those taxes should be

>>>> as fair as possible--rather than giving rich individuals and

>>>> certain multi-national corporations loopholes that allow them to

>>>> pay nothing, which results in higher taxes on the rest of us.

>>>

>>> I agree. However, the problems are not because someone doesn't pay

>>> taxes. The problems are cuased by Congress spending money as if

>>> there was an infinite supply. Once wealth creation stops, the

>>> supply will disappear within 50 years.

>>

>> As long as you're buying the Reagan-era trickle-down propaganda that

>> only the rich can create wealth, you're hopeless.

>

> Why do you think I'm doing that? I'm not.

>

>> Actual economists

>> agree they create wealth, sure, but they _also_ agree that the working

>> classes create _more_ wealth given the same amount of money. That's

>> because _spending_ is what creates real wealth, while speculation merely

>> creates the _illusion_ of wealth.

>

> You are using the term welath in a very different manner than I am. You

> are talking about expenditures and disposable income. I'm not.

> If I find a way to describe what I'm talking about, I will post it here.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97571 is a reply to message #97401] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1CA0DE6058B@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Walter Banks wrote:

>>

>>

>> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>

>>> Anytime somebody starts to demand that unearned income be taxed at the

>>> same level as the high income bracket, or higher as some suggestions

>>> here implied, I get very, very worried becuase these people are

>>> intelligent and have spent a lifetime doing analytical thinking.

>>>

>>

>> Why shouldn't unearned income be taxed as income?


> Among other things, it's already been taxed at

> least twice at the higher rates of earned income.


Like hell it is with someone like Buffet.

It isnt even with yours with that last either.

>> Earned income is limited to what can be earned in 2000

>> hours of labour a year, unearned income is when income

>> goes exponential. (Losses in unearned income are linear

>> and earnings are a power function) there is a lot of incentive

>> to make a living that way.


> I don't understand what you mean. Unearned income, IME,

> is dividends from owning stock shares and interest from

> bank accounts and owning bonds (including t-bills, etc.).


> If you want to start a philosophical discussion about

> why unearned income tax rates should be less than

> earned income tax rates, I'd be happy to participate.


> The current tax rates are trying to herd people to save

> more money via stocks, bonds, and government paper.

> Do you really want to stop that?


No, just tax that the same way 'earned' income is taxed.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97572 is a reply to message #97394] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C9E0E77AC6@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> greymausg wrote:

>> On 2013-07-16, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

>>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>> Right. It's not a real work tax break.

>>>>

>>>> in other cases there are references to shoebox corporations ...

>>>> corporations setting up home office ... in a tax location done by

>>>> somebody that specializes in the activity ... each corporation little

>>>> more than a shoebox on a wall with hundreds (or thousands) of other

>>>> shoebox corporations.

>>>

>>> It's done all over. Instead of whinging those countries' politicians

>>> should start doing their jobs.

>>>

>>> /BAH

>>

>> Wouldn't happen without the connivence of the US government.

>

> And others. Some of the things I hear about Europe makes me

> cringe and be glad I only have to deal with the US' mess.

>

>> One of the Channel Islands was recently reported to have 30

>> company directorships per head of adult population.

>>

> And why do those directorships have to use the Islands as

> headquarters? Either hide illegal activities or not

> pay taxes. If it's the latter, I'd look at the countries

> who are forcing people to go to those extremes.


More fool you. They have no alternative but to raise taxes
and that’s what is 'forcing' people to use tax havens.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97574 is a reply to message #97397] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C894AD8BCC@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>> On 16-Jul-13 14:01, Dan Espen wrote:

>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:

>>>> Ditto for many other industries. The tech industry in particular

>>>> has been having problems for decades, hence the H-1B visa program.

>>>> Even that can only provide a few hundred thousand skilled workers

>>>> per year, though, and that is but a drop in the bucket compared to

>>>> the demand that our pitiful educational system is leaving

>>>> completely unmet.

>>>

>>> Every off shore worker I've seen hired ...

>>

>> What I said above was about US-based workers; offshoring is another

>> matter entirely.

>>

>>> was as a result of a native worker being fired, and not fired for

>>> cause.

>>

>> "Fired" means terminated for cause. What you're referring to are

>> layoffs, which is when jobs are eliminated.

>

> CBS radio news reported a list of skills which are missing. IIRC,

> IT work was 4th or 5th on the list. Somehow I can't believe that

> one.


Your belief is hard to reconcile with the two who are doing the
recruiting right now tho who do report a real lack of skills in that area.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97576 is a reply to message #97399] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C9468CD2F7@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> greymausg wrote:

>> On 2013-07-16, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> On 15-Jul-13 07:06, Peter Flass wrote:

>>>> > On 7/14/2013 4:30 PM, jklam wrote:

>>>> than his secretary does.

>>>

>>> Warren Buffet was comparing earned income to unearned income. His

>>> secretary has a salary which is in the highest tax bracket. Buffet is

>>> nuts.

>>

>> Possibly, are we all not nuts in a small degree?.

>> Buffet bothers to seem socially responsible, whether he is in

>> fact is another question.

>

> It would seem so since his wealth isn't going to go to his kids.

>

>> Actually, a very interesting guy, seems

>> to understand the insurance industry better than anyone else.

>> Some of his moves are very obscure.

>

> Of course he's interesting but that single comment was foolish. He

> knows better. If he didn't know better, he wouldn't be a billionaire.


> The problem is every law passed to "get the rich"

> will only affect the middle class


Mindlessly silly. If 'unearned' income was taxed at the
same rate as 'earned' income, it would affect all of the
rich, the middle class and the working class as well,
particularly with the retired rich and working class.

> and they will become poorer.


Even sillier. If the rich were taxed more heavily than they
currently are, say by increasing the tax rate on incomes
over $1M a year, that would allow the tax rate on the
bulk of the middle class to be lower than it is now
to see the same total income tax raised.

Basic arithmetic that even you should be able to grasp.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97577 is a reply to message #97404] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote

>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote

>>>> > Stephen Sprunk wrote

>>>> >> Peter Flass wrote

>>>> >>> jklam wrote


>>>> >>>>> In all of the above cases, he'd still be a billionaire

>>>> >>>>> today, which is far more than he ever expected.


>>>> >>>> Yes, he would still be stinking rich even if that capital

>>>> >>>> gain was taxed at 95% and he would still try to do that.


>>>> >>> This is a "feel good" argument. That guy was just lucky and

>>>> >>> a lot sess deserving than the lady who cleans the toilets in

>>>> >>> his house, so let's take it from him and give it to her.


>>>> >> I'd be satisfied if he paid (at least) the same effective

>>>> >> tax rate that she did on her (much smaller) earnings.


>>>> >> Even Warren Buffet says it's ridiculous that he

>>>> >> pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does.


>>>> > Warren Buffet was comparing earned income to unearned income.


>>>> Nope, he is talking about tax rates.


>>>> > His secretary has a salary which is in the highest tax bracket.


>>>> He pays a lower tax rate than she does anyway.


>>> He pays a lower rate because his income is unearned.


>> That is just one of the reasons. The other is because he

>> has a lot more deductions available to him as well.


> What kind of deductions do you think he has?


The cost of doing business. Costs that she does
not have because she is just a wage slave.

> He can take interest expense


Yes.

> but not much else.


Bullshit. Her wages for starters.

>>> There is a difference.


>> You seriously 'think' that that is any news to anyone ?


> It is here. People keep producing one of the stupidest

> quotes of the last 3 deecades and use it to "prove" that

> the middle class and retireees should have their tax rates

> doubled or tripled.


You're lying now. No one has EVER said anything about
doubling or tripping the tax rates on the middle class
and retirees in here and I read every single post in here.

> If the tax rate went to 40%,


No one has even proposed that in here.

> that would quadrulple some people's taxess.


That’s not the tax rate, that’s the tax TAKE.

Yes, some have proposed eliminating some of the
deductions and rebates that allow the bottom HALF
of the US to pay no net federal income tax, but that
would no double or triple the tax RATE for those,
and would in fact see an INFINITE increase in the
tax TAKE for them.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97578 is a reply to message #97405] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C905CA590C@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:

>>

>>

>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message

>> news:PM0004E1B467AF4887@ac812019.ipt.aol.com...

>>> Walter Banks wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>>

>>>> > John Levine wrote:

>>>> > >>The majority of the person under 50 I know don't believe SS will be

>>>> > >>there for them. Perhaps they will make SS means tested first and

>>>> > >>then

>>>> > >>with many people figuring they won't get it, gradually drop the

>>>> > >>benefits. Some of the brightest minds are working on the problem of

>>>> > >>SS.

>>>> > >

>>>> > > That's really sad, and tells us how successful the right wing

>>>> > > disinformation machine is.

>>>> >

>>>> > Are you kidding? When I was 25, I didn't expect to collect SS. It

>>>> > was

>>>> > having trouble that far back.

>>>> >

>>>> > >

>>>> > > The reality is that the gap between SS expenditure and SS revenue is

>>>> > > not large. If we took the income cap off the SS tax to make it less

>>>> > > regressive, that would be enough to fund SS forever. Even with no

>>>> > > changes, it will be decades before there's any shortfall at all.

>>>> >

>>>> > And people won't be able to collect until they're 85.

>>>> >

>>>> > >

>>>> > > Medicare is a financial black hole, but it's the same black hole as

>>>> > > the whole US medical non-system, and Medicare has much lower

>>>> > > overhead

>>>> > > than any private insurance company.

>>>> > >

>>>> >

>>>> > Wait until after next year. The black hole will implode.

>>>>

>>>> I would be willing to take a small wager that it will not as soon

>>>> as the accounting is in for costs related to the currently

>>>> un-insured being covered.

>>>

>>> There will be more uninsured when employers drop the benefit (it's

>>> still a benefit, not a right).

>>

>> Even sillier. Its just another bare faced Limbaugh lie mindlessly

>> respewed.

>>

>

> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!


Nope. In fact I have said repeatedly that health insurance is
a lousy way to fund health care and that a universal single
payer system works much better, essentially because it
doesn’t have the overheads that are inevitable with any
insurance system.

And that isnt a right, its just the best way to fund health care.

And the Limbaugh lie mindlessly respewed was the first
half of that sentence, the stupid claim that 'there will be
more uninsured when employers drop the benefit'
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97579 is a reply to message #97410] Thu, 18 July 2013 17:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C98867542E@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:

>>

>>

>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message

>> news:PM0004E1B4B89DBF13@ac812019.ipt.aol.com...

>>> Peter Flass wrote:

>>>> On 7/15/2013 7:57 AM, Walter Banks wrote:

>>>> >

>>>> > Tax and government polies could easily change wealth distribution

>>>> > significantly with changes in those area's.

>>>> >

>>>> > The latter may very well make Obamacare ineffective and

>>>> > certainly inefficient compared to many other countries but

>>>> > it will make many companies very rich.

>>>> >

>>>>

>>>> I just read an interesting analogy. Most people have two good kidneys

>>>> and really only need one. while some people have kidney problems that

>>>> harm their quality of life and significantly shorten their lifespans.

>>>> Maybe the government needs a policy to redistribute kidneys from the

>>>> healthy people to the sick?

>>>

>>> <grin> [clapping emoticon here] They're not going to get it.

>>

>> There is nothing to get. Its just more mindlessly silly rhetoric.


> I was right.


Nope, there is nothing to get. Its just more mindlessly silly rhetoric.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97634 is a reply to message #97409] Thu, 18 July 2013 18:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C952E687D3@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Morten Reistad wrote:

>> In article <51E38421.1070508@SPAM.comp-arch.net>,

>> Andy (Super) Glew <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> wrote:

>>> On 7/14/2013 12:45 PM, jklam wrote:

>>>> That doesn't work with the US income tax system because the amount you

>>>> pay in US income tax is not dependant on where your primary residence

>>>> is.

>>>>

>>>> What matters is if you are a US citizen for tax purposes or not.]

>>>

>>> So have the income and hold the income producing property in an offshore

>>> company that you control.

>>>

>>> Leave the money offshore, for offshore expenses.

>>

>> Indeed. The idea of incorporating offshore is what secures the

>> tax base. Even I have an offshore pension fund. I will be taxed

>> to death if I use it as a non-pensioner, but can take income from

>> it when I retire. And if I retire in some low-tax jurisdiction

>> it will be taxed at that low rate.


> And why should one have to do all of this juggling?


You don’t, you are free to pay the taxes your govt imposes.

> Don't governments understand that high tax rates

> result in the wealth moving out of the country?


They obviously do. Income tax rates are MUCH lower than
they were in say the late 40s world wide in the first world.

In spades with the US and western europe. A few western
european countrys even had utterly bizarre top income tax
rates quite literally over 100% at one time. They don’t anymore.

>>> Only pay US tax on it when you actually need

>>> to spend the money for personal purposes.


>> Then you either take it as wages or as dividends from the

>> other company. Or you pay invoices from a US company.


> I worked with a guy whose mother moved to Mexico. It was

> cheap living until Mexico forced a $US to peso exchange. I'm not

> so sure how people would choose a host country at retirement.


Basically by where there are quite a few from the same country as
themselves, and on other stuff like what appeals climate wise and
culturally and how convenient the country is to your home country.

Corse the 'host country' has to allow that for most of them.
Re: What Makes an Unemployment Myth Bizarre? [message #97635 is a reply to message #97466] Thu, 18 July 2013 18:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lawrence Statton is currently offline  Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>

> That's been called the "Purple Squirrel" syndrome: companies - or at

> least their HR people - looking for candidates whose experience

> precisely matches the job requirements rather than looking for someone

> with sufficient experience to do the job.


I see both sides of that story from where I sit -- on the one hand, I
want to hire a programmer who can program, and if they need extra time
to get up-to-speed on the platforms we use, I'm willing to spend that
money. On the other hand, we're hiring because we need more hands to
do the shit that needs to be done NOW, and we want to find someone who
can hit the ground running. Hell, after the most recent turn of the
crank, I'd be happy to find someone who could hit the ground crawling
on hands-and-knees.

I'm reminded of a time, some years ago - we hired a guy who came via a
head-hunter, and he was VERY expensive, but my boss thought,
"Expensive - great resume, must be great!"

After he put in 20 or 30 hours on a task, my boss says "We've got to
get this done NOW - I thought this would be a one-day thing! Client
is calling me." So, I put in one evening, and knock it off in 2
hours.

I was asked, "Well - did he at least loosen the lid for you?" "No.
Nothing he wrote was even within shouting distance of the eventual
solution."

A variant of the Purple Squirrel failure mode:

J. Random Programmer applies for a job, and the guy doing the phone
interview was about to discard him out of hand because he didn't have
at least 3-years of experience with libfrobozz. JRP asks the
interviewer, "How many candidates have you gotten thus far that did?"
"None yet - it's really frustrating." "Did you ever consider that the
problem is you're asking for three years of experience in a package
that was only first released eighteen months ago? NOBODY has three
years experience with it, because libfrobozz did not exist three years
ago."

I've had roughly that experience from the JRP side, but not exactly.
I was once asked "It doesn't show on your résumé where you used
such-and-such system. How do I know you know anything about it?"

Me: Look at the author's name in the README file. I wrote it.

What was *particularly* frustrating about that, was that my name was
GIVEN to them by a then-current employee BECAUSE I was the author of
the system. I rejected their offer, because I considered that level
of communcation failure as symptomatic of Place I'd Never Want To
Work.

These kinds of screwups happen when there is not enough connection
between the people who need the work and the people who are tasked
with screening talent. It was roughly at that point that I decided:
I will never again work at any company where I cannot fit the entire
organization around my dining table. (I have a big dining table).

Twelve is the number I use now -- if there are more than twelve
"decision capable" people in the company, it's too big.

If someone can find a way to cheaply solve the Purple Squirrel
problem, they'll make a mint - right now, it costs us several thousand
dollars each time we go through the "advertise, sift, talk,
reject-99%" cycle for hiring.

Typically we'll get 2 or 3 possibles from that phase, and those will
get a $3000 budget (roughly a week) to complete some task that I would
consider a 1-day complexity task. If we're lucky, one of those
candidates will successfully complete the task and be offered a
continuing contract.

We spent about $17,000 to hire our most recent programmer, before we
ever wrote her a check.

--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97636 is a reply to message #97407] Thu, 18 July 2013 18:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote

>>> Walter Banks wrote

>>>> Walter Bushell wrote


>>>> > It's not a Ponzi scheme it's a tontine. But is really a welfare

>>>> > program. The real problem is that if people did save for retirement,

>>>> > it would crash the economy and lead to a concentration of wealth in

>>>> > the elderly, if the economy could survive the saving.


>>>> Is there some reason that SS was not fully funded from contributions?


>>> Yes. Over the years, the program has morphed

>>> from a retirement program to a welfare program.


>> It always was a welfare program. It was never

>> intended to be the only income in retirement,

>> it was only ever meant to be a social safetynet.


> It did not start out as payments for kids.


Sure, it was hard enough to get the basic scheme thru Congress.

> Tehre are lots of ways for working people to collect social security.


Yes, but it doesn’t pay well enough for most
but the most desperate povs to bother.

>>> There are many ways for working people to receive SS moneies.


>> Nothing else is even possible, and they paid money into the scheme

>> anyway.


> Why should a working adult be able to collect SS for his/her children?


That wasn’t intended, its only seen when the system is
abused/rorted/defrauded.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97637 is a reply to message #97288] Thu, 18 July 2013 18:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name> wrote in message
news:9cpiba-ioo.ln1@wair.reistad.name...
> In article <51E38421.1070508@SPAM.comp-arch.net>,

> Andy (Super) Glew <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> wrote:

>> On 7/14/2013 12:45 PM, jklam wrote:

>>> That doesn't work with the US income tax system because the amount you

>>> pay in US income tax is not dependant on where your primary residence

>>> is.

>>>

>>> What matters is if you are a US citizen for tax purposes or not.]

>>

>> So have the income and hold the income producing property in an offshore

>> company that you control.

>>

>> Leave the money offshore, for offshore expenses.

>

> Indeed. The idea of incorporating offshore is what secures the

> tax base. Even I have an offshore pension fund. I will be taxed

> to death if I use it as a non-pensioner, but can take income from

> it when I retire. And if I retire in some low-tax jurisdiction

> it will be taxed at that low rate.


Ours isnt taxed at all in retirement.

>> Only pay US tax on it when you actually need to spend the money for

>> personal purposes.

>

> Then you either take it as wages or as dividends from the

> other company. Or you pay invoices from a US company.
Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97639 is a reply to message #97453] Thu, 18 July 2013 18:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:ks91u1$5u4$1@dont-email.me...
> On 17-Jul-13 12:58, John Levine wrote:

>>> You can't say competition isn't working based on one example where

>>> there is little to no competition in practice.

>>

>> No, but you can say it based on economic analyses going back to the

>> 1960s. Here's the definitive paper from 1963 that everyone still

>> cites:

>>

>> http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/53.5.941-973.pdf

>>

>> There are certainly some areas where competition can work, such as a

>> single payer taking competitive bids for a specified set of goods or

>> services (pretty much what they do in Canada), but the idea that

>> people can shop competitively for individual services or for private

>> insurance is famously bogus.

>

> ... except that paper says absolutely nothing of the sort. It talks

> primarily about the economics of medical care without the presence of

> insurance. When it does talk about insurance, it merely says that the

> economics of multiple payers deserves further study. It does argue for

> compulsory coverage, but not for any particular form or market for that

> coverage.

>

> Also, there is at least one country that _does_ have a competitive

> individual market for health insurance with compulsory coverage; if you

> don't buy your own, the govt will buy it for you and bill the cost to

> you via deductions from welfare payments or tax refunds. It does work

> in practice, and there is no reason it couldn't work here as well.


But that country has the second highest % of GDP spent
on health care in the entire world, after the US. So while
that approach does certainly work, it is clearly much
more expensive than the single payer alternatives.

Presumably because of the inevitable extra overheads
any multiple insurance system must have.

> S

>

> --

> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein

> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the

> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97641 is a reply to message #97458] Thu, 18 July 2013 18:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:ks951v$s51$1@dont-email.me...
> On 18-Jul-13 09:31, jmfbahciv wrote:

>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>> On 17-Jul-13 08:16, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> > On 16-Jul-13 07:22, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >> the now-delayed medical insurance sosts,

>>>> >

>>>> > You mean Obamacare, which by House Republicans' own admission

>>>> > will actually _save_ the govt money?

>>>>

>>>> You don't get it. If money is "saved", Congress will spend 3x

>>>> the "saved" money. That's how they write their bills. They add

>>>> riders which will "take care" of the savings. When two or more

>>>> of these riders are added to a bill and then it becomes law,

>>>> there is no savings but a triple increase in expenditures.

>>>

>>> The Affordable Care Act as passed and signed into law _reduced_

>>> the federal deficit.

>>

>> That was the day it was passed. There are extra laws being passed

>> after that which takes care of the pieces which would have caused the

>> ACA to cause a huge deficit. IIR the first one passed was paying the

>> doctors.

>

> Um, what? Under Obamacare, the federal govt doesn't pay doctors, except

> for those under the existing Medicare program who were already getting

> paid.

>

>>> Now you're claiming that they increase spending $3 for every $1 in

>>> savings, which is also patently untrue and easily disproven.

>>>

>>> Congress is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, to be sure, but

>>> they're not quite as bad as you're painting them.

>>

>> Then why is the US on the brink of bankruptcy?

>

> Because Congress is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, as stated above.

>

> Bankruptcy does not require spending 3:1; 1.3:1, which is where the

> federal budget is actually at right now, does that too.

>

>> Take a look at how the money which the US took in from the auto

>> bailout. They spent it three times over and the original money

>> was borrowed; it didn't come from revenues.

>

> All of the bailout money was borrowed. But that doesn't prove, as you

> have claimed, that Congress spent $3 for every $1 it receives.

>

>>>> Where is funding for Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac coming from?

>>>> They are still in deep shit.

>>>

>>> They've been in deep shit for a long time.

>>

>> And the policies which got them there are still active. Those toxic

>> CDOs have not gone away.


> Nor has Glass-Steagal been put back in place.


Neither Canada nor Australia ever had anything like Glass-Steagal
and not one of their retail banks imploded spectacularly or even
needed to be bailed out by government since 2008.

Congress has done pretty
> much _nothing_ to stop the recent implosion from happening again,


No one will give those toxic CDOs AAA ratings again, and
if anyone did, they would not be believed even if they did.

That's what caused the problem.

> and there are already signs that another housing bubble is starting up.


Housing bubbles don’t normally produce the sort of result we saw in 2008.

>>>> Consider the losses created with the S&L crisis in the 80s. Have

>>>> those debts been paid off?

>>>

>>> I thought that the FDIC and Federal Reserve, which are _not_ part

>>> of the federal government, were the ones that bailed out the

>>> FSLIC?

>>

>> Not the FDIC. but even so where did those entites get their money?

>> The US taxpayer.

>

> Wrong. They get it via inflation, which steals wealth from everyone who

> holds dollars. That is a disjoint set from "US taxpayers".

>

>>> My state legislature recently passed a balanced budget--as required

>>> by state constitution. I've heard other states have similar

>>> requirements, but I don't know how many.

>>

>> There is a difference between a yearly balanced budget and borrowing

>> against future income thrice over. Only the interest is shown on

>> the yearly budget.

>

> My state's constitution also prohibits the govt from issuing debt,

> though we've still got some lingering from before that was enacted;

> there is no requirement that it be paid off, just the interest, and the

> buffoons in office never pay a bill they don't have to.

>

>>>> But your proposals are requiring that profits be "controlled" to

>>>> a low level or none.

>>>

>>> No, I just want mega-corporations to pay (at least) the same taxes

>>> that small businesses are required to pay--similar to how I want

>>> the rich to pay (at least) the same taxes as the middle class.

>>>

>>> I favor progressive taxes for fairly obvious and logical reasons,

>>> so I'd like the former to pay more than the latter, but right now

>>> we haven't even worked our way up to merely regressive.

>>

>> The annual reports I receive show companies paying income tax and

>> other taxes. I have yet to see one which has reported paying

>> US$0.00. Maybe I should be asking about the myth that big

>> corporations pay 0 income tax.

>

> The usual example cited is GE, but there have been dozens of others

> reported widely in the press. Congress even held hearings on the

> matter, but as usual they did nothing to address it.


Basically because no one has worked out how to address that world wide.

>>>> Then the corruption has infected the CBO. It's complete

>>>> nonsense.... or the term "spend" means not investing.

>>>

>>> You call it corruption, but they've produced reports on exactly how

>>> they calculated that effect, which to date no economist in the

>>> world has even refuted, much less disproven.

>>

>> Economists don't seem to know how work is done. Very few seem to go

>> beyond the book learning.

>

> They measured what actual people _do_ with additional income. The poor

> spend it all to improve their standard of living. The rich, who don't

> need to improve their standard of living, spend some on conspicuous

> consumption but speculate with most of it, which means _less_ economic

> activity per dollar of additional income.

>

> Ergo, if the goal is to increase economic activity (and therefore

> wealth), cutting taxes on the poor is better public policy than cutting

> taxes on the rich.

>

>>>> I agree. However, the problems are not because someone doesn't

>>>> pay taxes. The problems are cuased by Congress spending money as

>>>> if there was an infinite supply. Once wealth creation stops,

>>>> the supply will disappear within 50 years.

>>>

>>> As long as you're buying the Reagan-era trickle-down propaganda

>>> that only the rich can create wealth, you're hopeless.

>>

>> Why do you think I'm doing that? I'm not.

>

> You're the one saying that cutting taxes on the rich is the only way (or

> at least the best way) to generate wealth.

>

>>> Actual economists agree they create wealth, sure, but they _also_

>>> agree that the working classes create _more_ wealth given the same

>>> amount of money. That's because _spending_ is what creates real

>>> wealth, while speculation merely creates the _illusion_ of wealth.

>>

>> You are using the term welath in a very different manner than I am.

>> You are talking about expenditures and disposable income. I'm not.

>> If I find a way to describe what I'm talking about, I will post it here.


> Wealth is the accumulated fruits of labor.


No, the laborer's wages are not wealth.

> Labor is the production of goods and services. Obviously, the demand

> for labor depends on the _consumption_ of goods and services.

>

> Ergo, it is spending that creates wealth.

>

> Capital, which you seem to be calling wealth, is the _subset_ of wealth

> which is devoted to producing more wealth.

>

> Capital extracts economic rent from labor, transferring wealth from the

> worker to the capitalist. That is fair if the capital makes labor more

> productive (e.g. by investing in machines) by a large enough margin to

> offset the rent, but such is not guaranteed.

>

> S

>

> --

> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein

> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the

> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97642 is a reply to message #97564] Thu, 18 July 2013 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> That doesn't explain the millions of _open_ jobs.


Could you tell use where these millions of open jobs are advertised,
posted, or can otherwise be seen to exist?

I hope we mean skilled jobs that pay a living wage, not part time
whopper assembly.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97644 is a reply to message #97464] Thu, 18 July 2013 19:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Patrick Scheible" <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:86ppufdamo.fsf@chai.my.domain...
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>

>> Peter Flass wrote:

>>> On 7/17/2013 9:16 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Why is profit such a swear word?

>>>>

>>>

>>> Everyone likes to see a company produce something useful that people

>>> want to buy, sell a lot of them, and make a fair profit. Most of those

>>> things are not part of current business practices. They're all weasels

>>> these days. They fire people and move stuff overseas, play games to

>>> avoid paying taxes, try to cheat everyone in sight, and usually don't do

>>> anything useful in the first place.

>>>

>> Why do you assume that 100% of business is doing this?

>

> Because the businesses that don't do this have been eaten by the ones

> that do.


That has not happened with all of Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, News,
Intel, Seagate, AMD, Western Digital etc, all which do quite a bit of what
is useful.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97645 is a reply to message #97465] Thu, 18 July 2013 19:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Patrick Scheible" <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:86k3knda97.fsf@chai.my.domain...
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>

>> Morten Reistad wrote:

>>> In article <51E38421.1070508@SPAM.comp-arch.net>,

>>> Andy (Super) Glew <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> wrote:

>>>> On 7/14/2013 12:45 PM, jklam wrote:

>>>> > That doesn't work with the US income tax system because the amount you

>>>> > pay in US income tax is not dependant on where your primary residence

>>>> > is.

>>>> >

>>>> > What matters is if you are a US citizen for tax purposes or not.]

>>>>

>>>> So have the income and hold the income producing property in an offshore

>>>> company that you control.

>>>>

>>>> Leave the money offshore, for offshore expenses.

>>>

>>> Indeed. The idea of incorporating offshore is what secures the

>>> tax base. Even I have an offshore pension fund. I will be taxed

>>> to death if I use it as a non-pensioner, but can take income from

>>> it when I retire. And if I retire in some low-tax jurisdiction

>>> it will be taxed at that low rate.

>>

>> And why should one have to do all of this juggling? Don't governments

>> understand that high tax rates result in the wealth moving out of the

>> country?

>

> Even if the tax rates are low, there's always some pathetic hellhole of

> another country that will tolerate tax rates 2% lower and attract the

> businesses that shop around for the best tax havens.


And it doesn’t have to be a pathetic hellhole either,
places like Ireland have tax rates much lower than that.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97646 is a reply to message #97531] Thu, 18 July 2013 19:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:51E83C51.882EF152@bytecraft.com...
>

>

> jmfbahciv wrote:

>

>> Walter Banks wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>

>>>> Anytime somebody starts to demand that unearned income be taxed at the

>>>> same level as the high income bracket, or higher as some suggestions

>>>> here implied, I get very, very worried becuase these people are

>>>> intelligent and have spent a lifetime doing analytical thinking.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Why shouldn't unearned income be taxed as income?

>>

>> Among other things, it's already been taxed at least twice

>> at the higher rates of earned income.

>

> Almost all money gets taxed multiple times. Money spent

> buying consumer goods goes through multiple hands

> before it gets to raw materials used in its production.

>

> The issue are taxes only for the value added part of the

> economy or are income taxes taxes on income to

> participate in society.

>

> Put slightly different why should the taxes a farmer

> pays on income selling their crop be any different

> than the taxes paid by a banker on the profit from

> the loans to the farmer to buy seed for the crop and

> paid for out of revenue from the crop.

>

>

>>>

>>> Earned income is limited to what can be earned in 2000

>>> hours of labour a year, unearned income is when income

>>> goes exponential. (Losses in unearned income are linear

>>> and earnings are a power function) there is a lot of incentive

>>> to make a living that way.

>>

>> I don't understand what you mean. Unearned income, IME,

>> is dividends from owning stock shares and interest from

>> bank accounts and owning bonds (including t-bills, etc.).

>

> Wage earners are limited by the number of hours they can

> work typically 2000 hours a year (40 hours by 50 weeks)

> Unearned income doesn't have the hours restriction only

> a resource limit. Unearned income when the returns

> compound the result (power function) and when the results

> are negative losses are a linear decline.

>

> The asymmetrical results are a powerful incentive to have

> unearned income.

>

>> If you want to start a philosophical discussion about

>> why unearned income tax rates should be less than earned

>> income tax rates, I'd be happy to participate.

>>

>> The current tax rates are trying to herd people to save

>> more money via stocks, bonds, and government paper.

>> Do you really want to stop that?

>

> Why not stop it and treat all income as income?

>

> It is one thing to encourage savings with re-investments

> in society and the local economic base that affects your life.

> But much of that has not worked in that last twenty years

> or so. The tax advantages are there but the reason that

> they are there in the first place is either no longer valid

> or has been manipulated so non risk investments are also

> covered. Romney deferred income for example. As I

> understand it his value added salary was switched into

> a unearned income investment even on up front returns

> in an investment company (no-risk).


> If all income were treated like income it would

> reduce the taxes paid by salaried folks


Yes.

> and make labor in North America a lot more competitive.


No, because the cost of labor is much more
different than the reduced taxes would produce.

> Surprisingly, disposable income of revenue

> from unearned income would probably rise

> even though it would be taxed at a higher rate.


I don't buy that claim.

> It is entirely appropriate for revenue derived from

> un-earned income to be treated like current small

> business with accounting for costs and gains.


And that is certainly how some jurisdictions do it.

Tho they normally do treat capital gains differently,
essentially because there does need to be some
way of allowing for the fact that you can't treat
all gain as income because of inflation and it isnt
possible to accurately calculate the real after
inflation gain, because there is no such thing as
a nice tidy single inflation rate across an economy.

> A respectful discussion on unearned

> income tax rates has a lot of merit.


Yes. And not just respectful either, a rational discussion too.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97647 is a reply to message #97533] Thu, 18 July 2013 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote
> jmfbahciv wrote


>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!


> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.


I don't. I do think that it is something that is important
in a civilised society, just like say education and rule of
law and democracy are too.

> A healthy population makes a country far more

> competitive on the world stage.


The modern reality is that the health care system
has very little to do with a healthy population
anymore. Its much more about dealing with
the inevitable health care needs of geriatrics
and a few other situations like childbirth and
car accidents etc. None of which have anything
much at all to do with being competitive on
the world stage.

Its certainly true that the US has a much worse
health care system than the rest of the modern
first world, particularly for those who don't have
any health insurance, but that hasn't stopped the
US continuing to be where almost all of the full
commercialisation of almost all technology
happens first or why most manufacturing has
moved offshore to low labor cost countrys like
China. But other stuff like movies and TV series
has not.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97648 is a reply to message #97543] Thu, 18 July 2013 19:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>

>> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>

>>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>

>> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>> A healthy population makes a country far more

>> competitive on the world stage.

>

> It's more a necessity than a right.

> In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.


That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with
or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.

> Without insurance a serious illness will bankrupt you and then

> if you do get treatment, someone else pays.

>

> Emergency medical treatment became a right in 1986 under Reagan.

> (EMTALA).

>

> --

> Dan Espen
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97649 is a reply to message #97544] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:ks9g7n$u2r$1@dont-email.me...
> On 17-Jul-13 21:18, 127 wrote:

>> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message

>> news:ks7bdm$935$1@dont-email.me...

>>> On 17-Jul-13 15:02, 127 wrote:

>>>> I never said anything about any wonderful life. They just decide

>>>> that being a single mother on welfare is better than the worst of

>>>> the unskilled work.

>>

>>> ... or they've been brainwashed with moral objections to abortion,

>>> or they simply can't afford one,

>>

>> Doesn’t cost much to get an abortion using RU486 etc.


> It still costs a lot,


In fact it costs less than their cigarettes do, because
even the most profligate don’t have to do it more
than a couple of times a year at most.

> on top of the costs of traveling hundreds of miles


That is not the case for most people.

> to one of the few abortion clinics that the neocons haven't managed to

> shut down yet, lost wages during recovery, etc.


There are no lost wages during recovery for most people.

And they can certainly afford the morning after pill which
is a lot cheaper than waiting till you need RU486 and
needs no travel cost or lost wages either.

>>>> > So why did they get pregnant in the first place?

>>>>

>>>> Because they like to fuck.

>>>

>>> So do most humans, but only the low-income ones tend to have

>>> unwanted pregnancies. There's a reason for that:

>>

>> Yes, few kids that age bother with birth control until they end up

>> pregnant.


> Few "kids" have _access_ to effective birth control.


That is not correct with the morning after pill.

> Even young adults often don't know about it


I don’t believe that. They find out about it the same
way they find out about sex, from other kids doing it.

> (due to idiotic laws banning teaching them),


That is not their only source of information in that.

> don't use it correctly (due to idiotic laws banning

> teaching them) or simply can't afford it.


Everyone can afford a condom or the morning after pill.

> That doesn't stop them from having sex, though, so the results are

> predictable.


>>>> > Because birth control is simply too expensive for someone

>>>> > without health insurance.

>>>>

>>>> Condoms don’t cost much.

>>

>>> But they're not very effective in practice, over the long run; you

>>> only need to mess up once, and most users mess up frequently.

>>

>> They aren't the only cheap contraceptive.


> I'm not aware of anything cheaper that is at least as effective, and

> they're not all that effective--or all that cheap--to begin with.


They are in fact very cheap indeed.

And while the morning after pill does cost more,
its much more effective and requires nothing of
the sexual partner, or even his knowledge.

>>>> Even birth control costs a lot less than cigarettes or coffee.

>>

>>> Look up the full cost, i.e. including exams every six months

>>

>> You don’t need an exam every 6 months.

>

> That statement shows how ignorant you are of women's health care.


No, it shows that I know that that is not necessary.

And the morning after pill requires no exam at all, ever.

>>> Ironically, _after_ they have a kid, the govt is willing to give

>>> them free birth control. But not before, when it would save the

>>> government literally trillions of dollars.

>>

>> I doubt many of those who do end up pregnant would bother to use it

>> even if it was free.


> The vast majority would because they don't _want_ to get pregnant.


Doesn’t explain why so few who do have it available for
free have just the one child because its free after the first.

> At a minimum, the 1.5 million per year who get abortions would

> almost certainly have used birth control if it had been an option.


I don’t believe that either. Some of them just see an abortion
as an effective way to do birth control and they do have a
point with the morning after pill approach to abortion.

>> The evidence that most won't is the huge numbers that have more than

>> just the one child when birth control is free after the first one> shows

>> up.


> Most don't, actually.


That is not correct. Very few on welfare have just one child in their entire
life.

In fact there aren't all that many who do have just
one child in their entire life who are medically able
to have more than one.

> For those who do, it's better to have your kids close

> together rather than have large gaps between them.

> Two years is currently accepted as the ideal spacing.


And hardly any who can have more than one choose to have just one.

Some do, presumably with at least some of them because
they decide that they don’t want to repeat the downsides,
not because birth control is now free for them.

> S

>

> --

> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein

> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the

> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97650 is a reply to message #97554] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:buKdne5eEoKu0nXMnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@bt.com...
> On 18/07/2013 17:33, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> {snip}

>

>> They measured what actual people _do_ with additional income. The poor

>> spend it all to improve their standard of living. The rich, who don't

>> need to improve their standard of living, spend some on conspicuous

>> consumption but speculate with most of it, which means _less_ economic

>> activity per dollar of additional income.

>>

>> Ergo, if the goal is to increase economic activity (and therefore

>> wealth), cutting taxes on the poor is better public policy than cutting

>> taxes on the rich.

>>

> {snip}

>

> You are fighting the previous war (The Great Depression).


Not even that now that the bottom half of the US pays no
net federal income tax, so it isnt even possible to cut the
taxes on the poor, because there are no federal taxes on
the poor at all. Or even on quite a bit of the working class
and middle class, particularly the retired middle class who
don’t have much of a retirement income.

> The modern poor spend their money on goods from China.


Yes, and so does the working and middle class too. And
even the rich with stuff like iphones and stuff like that
where there is no alternative even for the stinking rich.

> The modern problem is reducing the goods we import from Asia and

> increasing our exports to them.


No, that is not the current economic problem. You are
yourself fighting the previous war, (the Great Depression)
and its obsession with international trade and protectionism.

The modern reality is Chimerica, tho it should certainly
include the EU and all other modern first world countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimerica
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97652 is a reply to message #97558] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote
> Dan Espen wrote


>> Money doesn't disappear after it gets spent.


> There is one exception and that is when there is

> an imbalance in the balance of payments in

> imported goods money is spent and then goes

> into circulation in a foreign country.


It doesn't even then when most of it comes
back to buy US Treasurys to fund the deficit.

> The money doesn't disappear but it no longer

> is in this economy.


Yes, but why is that any worse than money
that moves between the least successful
and the more successful states in the US ?

> China turned that into an art form a few

> years ago because they sold goods at cost


No they did not. If they had done that they would
not have the money to pay for the immense levels
of urban redevelopment they are doing.

> and then profited by the additional cash flow in their

> economy.


Just like places like Detroit and California did in the US.
Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97653 is a reply to message #97639] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stephen Sprunk is currently offline  Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 18-Jul-13 17:28, 127 wrote:
> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message

> news:ks91u1$5u4$1@dont-email.me...

>> Also, there is at least one country that _does_ have a competitive

>> individual market for health insurance with compulsory coverage; if

>> you don't buy your own, the govt will buy it for you and bill the

>> cost to you via deductions from welfare payments or tax refunds.

>> It does work in practice, and there is no reason it couldn't work

>> here as well.

>

> But that country has the second highest % of GDP spent on health

> care in the entire world, after the US. So while that approach does

> certainly work, it is clearly much more expensive than the single

> payer alternatives.

>

> Presumably because of the inevitable extra overheads any multiple

> insurance system must have.


Are you sure about that? Here's the top 15 from the World Bank's stats
on health care costs as a percentage of GDP[1]:

Country name 2008 2009 2010 2011
Liberia 11.8 18.1 16.4 19.5
Sierra Leone 18.1 22.2 20.8 18.8
United States 16.6 17.7 17.6 17.9
Tuvalu 13.8 13.3 14.5 17.3
Marshall Isls 18.8 18.9 17.1 16.5
Micronesia, FS 12.8 13.3 13.6 13.4
Lesotho 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.8
Netherlands 11.0 12.0 12.1 12.0
France 11.0 11.7 11.7 11.6
Moldova 11.4 12.5 11.7 11.4
Canada 10.3 11.4 11.4 11.2
Denmark 10.2 11.5 11.1 11.2
Germany 10.7 11.7 11.5 11.1
Costa Rica 9.3 10.3 10.3 10.9
Switzerland 10.3 11.0 10.9 10.9

Which country(ies) are you basing your claims on? IIRC, the one I was
thinking of was Germany, but it might have been Switzerland, both of
which have a _lower_ percentage of GDP going to health care than the
most commonly cited single-payer systems, France and Canada, though the
difference isn't consistent enough to draw a conclusion about which is
clearly "better", even assuming % of GDP is the only metric that
matters--and it's not.

S

[1]
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wba pi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&am p;sort=desc

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97654 is a reply to message #97648] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"127" <127@586.com> writes:

> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

> news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...

>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>>

>>> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>

>>>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>>

>>> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>>> A healthy population makes a country far more

>>> competitive on the world stage.

>>

>> It's more a necessity than a right.

>> In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.

>

> That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with

> or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.


Hi Rod.

One visit to the lab for a blood test:

Submitted to insurer: 143.52
Paid by insurer: 19.06

No out of pocket.

Seems to me like a necessity.

--
Dan Espen
Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97655 is a reply to message #97653] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:ksa0j6$46s$1@dont-email.me...
> On 18-Jul-13 17:28, 127 wrote:

>> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message

>> news:ks91u1$5u4$1@dont-email.me...

>>> Also, there is at least one country that _does_ have a competitive

>>> individual market for health insurance with compulsory coverage; if

>>> you don't buy your own, the govt will buy it for you and bill the

>>> cost to you via deductions from welfare payments or tax refunds.

>>> It does work in practice, and there is no reason it couldn't work

>>> here as well.

>>

>> But that country has the second highest % of GDP spent on health

>> care in the entire world, after the US. So while that approach does

>> certainly work, it is clearly much more expensive than the single

>> payer alternatives.

>>

>> Presumably because of the inevitable extra overheads any multiple

>> insurance system must have.


> Are you sure about that?


Yes.

> Here's the top 15 from the World Bank's stats

> on health care costs as a percentage of GDP[1]:


> Country name 2008 2009 2010 2011

> Liberia 11.8 18.1 16.4 19.5

> Sierra Leone 18.1 22.2 20.8 18.8

> United States 16.6 17.7 17.6 17.9

> Tuvalu 13.8 13.3 14.5 17.3

> Marshall Isls 18.8 18.9 17.1 16.5

> Micronesia, FS 12.8 13.3 13.6 13.4

> Lesotho 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.8

> Netherlands 11.0 12.0 12.1 12.0

> France 11.0 11.7 11.7 11.6

> Moldova 11.4 12.5 11.7 11.4

> Canada 10.3 11.4 11.4 11.2

> Denmark 10.2 11.5 11.1 11.2

> Germany 10.7 11.7 11.5 11.1

> Costa Rica 9.3 10.3 10.3 10.9

> Switzerland 10.3 11.0 10.9 10.9


I prefer the figures from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_heal th_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
because the very low GDP countries aren't really relevant to this
discussion.

> Which country(ies) are you basing your claims on?


Switzerland.

> IIRC, the one I was thinking of was Germany,


It has rather more than just an compulsory insurance system.

> but it might have been Switzerland,


Yes.

> both of which have a _lower_ percentage of GDP going to health care

> than the most commonly cited single-payer systems, France and Canada,


Yeah, that claim was about 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_systems_by_country#Switz erland

> though the difference isn't consistent enough to draw a conclusion

> about which is clearly "better", even assuming % of GDP is the only

> metric that matters--and it's not.


Never said it was.

It Switzerland does not in fact have anything like a truly competitive
insurance system because the government does not allow the insurance
companies to vary the insurance premiums based on health risk, just on
age and does control what can be charged for basic cover too.

> S

>

> [1]

> http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wba pi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&am p;sort=desc

>

> --

> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein

> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the

> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97656 is a reply to message #97654] Thu, 18 July 2013 20:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:icmwpje6er.fsf@home.home...
> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>

>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>> news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...

>>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>>

>>>> > You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>>>

>>>> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>>>> A healthy population makes a country far more

>>>> competitive on the world stage.

>>>

>>> It's more a necessity than a right.

>>> In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.

>>

>> That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with

>> or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.


> One visit to the lab for a blood test:


Not necessary for most problems a GP can deal with.

> Submitted to insurer: 143.52


Quite possible to pay for that even without insurance.

> Paid by insurer: 19.06


> No out of pocket.


> Seems to me like a necessity.


It isnt. People spend much more than that on
cigarettes and iphones and laptops and holidays.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97657 is a reply to message #97656] Thu, 18 July 2013 21:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"127" <127@586.com> wrote in message
news:b4rhdgFifg1U1@mid.individual.net...
>

>

> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

> news:icmwpje6er.fsf@home.home...

>> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>>

>>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>> news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...

>>>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >

>>>> >> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>>> >

>>>> > I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>>>> > A healthy population makes a country far more

>>>> > competitive on the world stage.

>>>>

>>>> It's more a necessity than a right.

>>>> In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.

>>>

>>> That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with

>>> or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.

>

>> One visit to the lab for a blood test:

>

> Not necessary for most problems a GP can deal with.

>

>> Submitted to insurer: 143.52

>

> Quite possible to pay for that even without insurance.

>

>> Paid by insurer: 19.06

>

>> No out of pocket.

>

>> Seems to me like a necessity.

>

> It isnt. People spend much more than that on

> cigarettes and iphones and laptops and holidays.


Now list what that health insurance premium cost you.

Might well be just a tad more than 143.52
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97658 is a reply to message #97656] Thu, 18 July 2013 21:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"127" <127@586.com> writes:

> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

> news:icmwpje6er.fsf@home.home...

>> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>>

>>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>> news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...

>>>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >

>>>> >> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>>> >

>>>> > I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>>>> > A healthy population makes a country far more

>>>> > competitive on the world stage.

>>>>

>>>> It's more a necessity than a right.

>>>> In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.

>>>

>>> That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with

>>> or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.

>

>> One visit to the lab for a blood test:

>

> Not necessary for most problems a GP can deal with.


What? Rod, in your never ending quest to contradict, you've stepped
over the edge of the cliff. I called the Dr. told him I'd short circuit
the process and have the lab pull the blood to save money. The lab with
a tech, pulls blood a lot cheaper (and with more skill) than any doctor.

This is all so the Dr. will renew my cholesterol Rx.
I need blood tests every 6 months.

So, total cost for high cholesterol:

2 lab visits / year 2*143
12 Rx refills 12*?

No Dr visits.

>> Submitted to insurer: 143.52

>

> Quite possible to pay for that even without insurance.

>

>> Paid by insurer: 19.06

>

>> No out of pocket.

>

>> Seems to me like a necessity.

>

> It isnt. People spend much more than that on

> cigarettes and iphones and laptops and holidays.


What's with the cigarettes? The majority of the public are non-smokers.
Some of my best friends are smokers. It would be nice if they stopped
but it's none of my business.

--
Dan Espen
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97659 is a reply to message #97657] Thu, 18 July 2013 21:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"127" <127@586.com> writes:

> "127" <127@586.com> wrote in message

> news:b4rhdgFifg1U1@mid.individual.net...

>>

>>

>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>> news:icmwpje6er.fsf@home.home...

>>> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...

>>>> > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>>>> >

>>>> >> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>>> >>

>>>> >> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>>>> >> A healthy population makes a country far more

>>>> >> competitive on the world stage.

>>>> >

>>>> > It's more a necessity than a right.

>>>> > In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.

>>>>

>>>> That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with

>>>> or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.

>>

>>> One visit to the lab for a blood test:

>>

>> Not necessary for most problems a GP can deal with.

>>

>>> Submitted to insurer: 143.52

>>

>> Quite possible to pay for that even without insurance.

>>

>>> Paid by insurer: 19.06

>>

>>> No out of pocket.

>>

>>> Seems to me like a necessity.

>>

>> It isnt. People spend much more than that on

>> cigarettes and iphones and laptops and holidays.

>

> Now list what that health insurance premium cost you.

>

> Might well be just a tad more than 143.52


Seriously?

You think that lab visit is my only medical expense?

Anyway, I'm far from average, my medical expenses are way lower than my
premiums. For now.

I know first hand, one bout of sickness can send you to the poor house
without insurance.

--
Dan Espen
Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97704 is a reply to message #97550] Thu, 18 July 2013 21:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stephen Sprunk is currently offline  Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 18-Jul-13 15:16, John Levine wrote:
>> Also, there is at least one country that _does_ have a competitive

>> individual market for health insurance with compulsory coverage; if

>> you don't buy your own, the govt will buy it for you and bill the

>> cost to you via deductions from welfare payments or tax refunds.

>> It does work in practice, and there is no reason it couldn't work

>> here as well.

>

> I presume you mean Switzerland?


I thought it was Germany, but it might have been Switzerland, or
Austria. It's been a while since I read about it.

> If you dig deeper, I believe you'll find that the insurance

> companies are highly regulated, same coverage, same price for

> everyone regardless of age or history, and not for profit for the

> basic insurance, with options only for addons like dental and private

> room supplements.


That's not how I understood it, but I don't recall enough to say how
accurate any of those claims are. I just know that it's a multi-payer
system and their costs and health outcomes are in line with European
single-payer systems--and better on both counts than the present US
system (if it can even be called a "system").

> Sure, that can work, although as Uwe Reinhart noted, it's the effect

> of single payer with the overhead of private insurance.


If you require the same coverage and prices from every carrier, then
that would certainly be the logical result.

I'd rather have a system where customers can choose from several plans
based on their own priorities and finances. For instance, I prefer a
high deductible in return for no rationing, as I get with my current
PPO, whereas that wouldn't be appropriate for low-income families.

A single-payer basic care system with private add-on coverage would be
my second choice--and probably have lower total overhead.

> Good luck getting the insurance vampires here to go for it, though.


Don't forget that the health insurers (via their puppet Bob Dole) were
the ones who originally proposed what came to be known as Obamacare,
which implements a multi-payer, multi-plan system as described above.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97705 is a reply to message #97658] Thu, 18 July 2013 21:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:icfvvbe4dc.fsf@home.home...
> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>

>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>> news:icmwpje6er.fsf@home.home...

>>> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...

>>>> > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>>>> >

>>>> >> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>>> >>

>>>> >> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>>>> >> A healthy population makes a country far more

>>>> >> competitive on the world stage.

>>>> >

>>>> > It's more a necessity than a right.

>>>> > In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.

>>>>

>>>> That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with

>>>> or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.

>>

>>> One visit to the lab for a blood test:

>>

>> Not necessary for most problems a GP can deal with.


> What?


Even you should be able to understand something as simple as that.

> in your never ending quest to contradict,

> you've stepped over the edge of the cliff.


We'll see...

> I called the Dr. told him I'd short circuit the process

> and have the lab pull the blood to save money.


It isnt necessary to have a blood test
for most of the things you see a GP for.

> The lab with a tech, pulls blood a lot cheaper

> (and with more skill) than any doctor.


> This is all so the Dr. will renew my cholesterol Rx.

> I need blood tests every 6 months.


No you don’t, once a year is plenty.

> So, total cost for high cholesterol:


> 2 lab visits / year 2*143

> 12 Rx refills 12*?


> No Dr visits.


There are plenty of things people see a GP
for that do not have that sort of recurring stuff.

>>> Submitted to insurer: 143.52

>>

>> Quite possible to pay for that even without insurance.

>>

>>> Paid by insurer: 19.06

>>

>>> No out of pocket.

>>

>>> Seems to me like a necessity.

>>

>> It isnt. People spend much more than that on

>> cigarettes and iphones and laptops and holidays.


> What's with the cigarettes?


Its an example of what costs some much more
than they pay each year on visits to the doctor
even if they do not have health insurance.

> The majority of the public are non-smokers.


But the majority of the public would have at
least one of those costs that I listed. Which
is why I listed more than just cigarettes.

> Some of my best friends are smokers. It would be

> nice if they stopped but it's none of my business.


It is when you pay for their smoking in
the health insurance premiums you pay.

>> Now list what that health insurance premium cost you.


>> Might well be just a tad more than 143.52


> Seriously?


Yes.

> You think that lab visit is my only medical expense?


No. But the majority of people don’t have more
than one visit to the doctor each year and would
be paying a lot less for that out of pocket than
they pay in health insurance premiums.

So your original is just plain wrong.
Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97706 is a reply to message #97704] Thu, 18 July 2013 22:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> I'd rather have a system where customers can choose from several plans

> based on their own priorities and finances. For instance, I prefer a

> high deductible in return for no rationing, as I get with my current

> PPO, whereas that wouldn't be appropriate for low-income families.


So long as they're all real insurance, OK. But remember that a big
part of the plan is to ensure that everyone who shows up at the
emergency room has coverage for the care they need.

You might also want to look at the Canadian and French systems.
Although "rationing" is a big buzzword on the right here, in an
impressive number of cases the opposite of rationing is "waste,"
treatments for which there is no evidence that they improve
the patient's health or likely outcomes.



--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97707 is a reply to message #97386] Thu, 18 July 2013 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wclodius is currently offline  wclodius
Messages: 16
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <1l64b6w.1apx6y1xwluo0N%wclodius@earthlink.net>, on 07/16/2013

> at 08:54 PM, wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius) said:

>

>> but not the catastrophy that the above implies. We have a lot of

>> options: postpone benefits to improve the worker/retiree ratio;

>

> Not without raising or eliminating the age caps on anti-discrimination

> laws.

Congress has to obey age capss? I thought they had already raised the
nominal SS retirement age twice for those not yet in retirement.
Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97708 is a reply to message #97653] Thu, 18 July 2013 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> Are you sure about that? Here's the top 15 from the World Bank's stats

> on health care costs as a percentage of GDP[1]:


> Which country(ies) are you basing your claims on? IIRC, the one I was

> thinking of was Germany, but it might have been Switzerland, both of

> which have a _lower_ percentage of GDP going to health care than the

> most commonly cited single-payer systems, France and Canada


That's not a very useful metric, because Switzerland is much richer
than Germany, France or Canada.

GDP/person, 2012 (from the Economist):

Switzerland $67,460
Canada $46,210
Germany $40,120
France $39.450

Do a dollars to dollars comparison and it's clear how inefficient the
Swiss system is.

Germany is part public and part private, but 85% of the population
belong to the public insurer so it's close to single payer.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97753 is a reply to message #97708] Fri, 19 July 2013 01:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
127 is currently offline  127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote in message
news:ksaa38$an9$2@leila.iecc.com...
>> Are you sure about that? Here's the top 15 from the World Bank's stats

>> on health care costs as a percentage of GDP[1]:

>

>> Which country(ies) are you basing your claims on? IIRC, the one I was

>> thinking of was Germany, but it might have been Switzerland, both of

>> which have a _lower_ percentage of GDP going to health care than the

>> most commonly cited single-payer systems, France and Canada

>

> That's not a very useful metric, because Switzerland is much richer

> than Germany, France or Canada.


Yeah, that must be where I got my original
from and mangled the story by using GDP.

> GDP/person, 2012 (from the Economist):

>

> Switzerland $67,460

> Canada $46,210

> Germany $40,120

> France $39.450

>

> Do a dollars to dollars comparison and it's clear how inefficient the

> Swiss system is.


And the downsides of an insurance system instead of single payer
cost wise.

> Germany is part public and part private, but 85% of the population

> belong to the public insurer so it's close to single payer.

>

> --

> Regards,

> John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for

> Dummies",

> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97797 is a reply to message #97659] Fri, 19 July 2013 06:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Bushell is currently offline  Walter Bushell
Messages: 1834
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <icbo5ze43x.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
wrote:

> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>

>> "127" <127@586.com> wrote in message

>> news:b4rhdgFifg1U1@mid.individual.net...

>>>

>>>

>>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>> news:icmwpje6er.fsf@home.home...

>>>> "127" <127@586.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>>> > news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...

>>>> >> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.

>>>> >>> A healthy population makes a country far more

>>>> >>> competitive on the world stage.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> It's more a necessity than a right.

>>>> >> In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.

>>>> >

>>>> > That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with

>>>> > or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.

>>>

>>>> One visit to the lab for a blood test:

>>>

>>> Not necessary for most problems a GP can deal with.

>>>

>>>> Submitted to insurer: 143.52

>>>

>>> Quite possible to pay for that even without insurance.

>>>

>>>> Paid by insurer: 19.06

>>>

>>>> No out of pocket.

>>>

>>>> Seems to me like a necessity.

>>>

>>> It isnt. People spend much more than that on

>>> cigarettes and iphones and laptops and holidays.

>>

>> Now list what that health insurance premium cost you.

>>

>> Might well be just a tad more than 143.52

>

> Seriously?

>

> You think that lab visit is my only medical expense?

>

> Anyway, I'm far from average, my medical expenses are way lower than my

> premiums. For now.

>

> I know first hand, one bout of sickness can send you to the poor house

> without insurance.


For it to be insurance cost of policy *must* be much lower than
average for most people, obviously. Wurst, health insurance is mainly
not insurance, but routine and preventative care. I've heard that
given the government mandates some companies are buying policies than
provide the routine and preventative care, but provide little
insurance for major medical. I rarely sausage a mess.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97799 is a reply to message #97544] Fri, 19 July 2013 06:50 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Walter Bushell is currently offline  Walter Bushell
Messages: 1834
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ks9g7n$u2r$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

> Most don't, actually. For those who do, it's better to have your kids

> close together rather than have large gaps between them. Two years is

> currently accepted as the ideal spacing.


And 6 years is way too long. The baby arrives just when the older kid
is entering school and the older kid gets the "We love you just as
much, but we are going to have to dedicate more time to the baby
speech.". Which goes over like a pregnant pole vaulter.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Pages (231): [ «    152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Next SCCAN meeting - Saturday, January 18
Next Topic: Most Americans still own a VCR
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 00:59:56 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.21675 seconds