Slightly OT but worrying

[Craig Fink]

Anybody here in the USA been selling our Liberty to purchase power lately?
Everybody feel safer here in the USA? I don't know about you all out
there, but I like it when they search an 80 year old woman at the airport.
Sure gives me a sense of wellbeing, a warm feeling that comes with really
being safe on the airplane, safe in the knowledge that your grandmother
isn't going to ...

There are only a few great opportunities like 911 that come along every
once in awhile, where the people of the United States will accept such
transactions that have gone on here lately. Think about it Bin Laden, one
smart guy, hanging out with a group of the most ignorant people in the
World, the Elvis of the War on Terror. Anybody seen Elvis lately?

I'm not sure you Europeans really understand the American psyche. The term
"War on ..." has a very good connotation and meaning here in the USA. We
have used the term for decades now, really somewhat like a rallying cry
for action about this or that. The meaning of War isn't what it used to be
when the Department of War's name was change to the Department of Defense,
a politically correct change many years ago.

"War on", really a never ending term. A term that allows all the great
legislation that's been passed here in the US to become the norm in the
future.

So, when you all go to the ballot box this November and see all those
great choices the media has told you about, Mutt and Jeff, Jeff and Mutt.
Be careful to choose the right Mutt, or was it Jeff. And, go ahead and
ignore anyone else that might appear on the ballot, who you know nothing
about, because you didn't take the time to find out, and the media really
didn't care to tell you about ... he's not the Mutt or Jeff that the media
gives a vast unregulated political contribution to every election cycle,
disguised as the News.

Make your voice heard this November, vote Libertarian!

The preceding Political Ad wasn't paid for by anybody, not even the
Libertarian Party.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ ***@GMail.Com
--

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

[l***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by Craig Fink
Anybody here in the USA been selling our Liberty to purchase power lately?

Let me think... oh, yeah, any politician or lawyer who has used tragedy
or ignorance to push an anti-gun agenda and perpetuate their own power.

[Dave Michelson]

Post by Craig Fink
Anybody here in the USA been selling our Liberty to purchase power
lately? Everybody feel safer here in the USA? I don't know about you
all out there, but I like it when they search an 80 year old woman at
the airport. Sure gives me a sense of wellbeing, a warm feeling that
comes with really being safe on the airplane, safe in the knowledge
that your grandmother isn't going to ...

I appreciate your concerns, but it's very hard to know for sure who is a
bad guy or is being used a bad guy. Hindsight is too late.

Examples:

In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to
board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents
discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag.
The woman’s Palestinian boyfriend – the father of her unborn child – had
hidden the bomb.

In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman – neither of whom
were Middle Eastern – posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb
aboard Korean Air flight 858 from Baghdad to Thailand. Over the Andaman
Sea, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

[Craig Fink]

I notice you have a Canadian E-Mail address, could you give me some
examples of a Canadian grandmothers boarding aircraft with a bombs. I'd
look for it myself, but really think I might be waisting my time looking
for something that isn't there. We've been living with and fighting
aircraft bombing for 4 or 5 decades now, so you should be able to find
some examples in that time span.

The way I see it two things occurred Sept. 11, 2001. First, three aircraft
converted to weapons by foreign terrorist. Males, between the ages of ..
to .., Muslim, non-citizen, a group, from a few Middle Eastern countries.
Definitely not your grandmother in Canada.

And, secondly, the end of the use of converted passenger planes as weapons
a hour or so later. The concept being introduced to the world, word
spreading about it rather quickly, and passengers taking the appropriate
action ending the usefulness of the concept. All essentially happening
before the Government could do the first thing to react.

The concept of passengers and crew of an aircraft cooperating with a
terrorist to save their own lives has ended.

So, it really doesn't make me feel the least bit safer watching your
grandmother spread eagle while they take away her fingernail file and toe
nail clippers. If 911 was caused by a lack of intelligence, to me it seems
like the intelligence is heading down hill.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ ***@GMail.Com
--

Post by Dave Michelson

Post by Craig Fink
Anybody here in the USA been selling our Liberty to purchase power
lately? Everybody feel safer here in the USA? I don't know about you
all out there, but I like it when they search an 80 year old woman at
the airport. Sure gives me a sense of wellbeing, a warm feeling that
comes with really being safe on the airplane, safe in the knowledge
that your grandmother isn't going to ...

I appreciate your concerns, but it's very hard to know for sure who is a
bad guy or is being used a bad guy. Hindsight is too late.
In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to
board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents
discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag.
The woman’s Palestinian boyfriend – the father of her unborn child – had
hidden the bomb.
In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman – neither of whom
were Middle Eastern – posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb
aboard Korean Air flight 858 from Baghdad to Thailand. Over the Andaman
Sea, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Craig Fink
I notice you have a Canadian E-Mail address, could you give me some
examples of a Canadian grandmothers boarding aircraft with a bombs. I'd
look for it myself, but really think I might be waisting my time looking
for something that isn't there. We've been living with and fighting
aircraft bombing for 4 or 5 decades now, so you should be able to find
some examples in that time span.

When was the last time an El Al flight was hijacked?

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Craig Fink
Make your voice heard this November, vote Libertarian!

I can remember when I first heard of the Libertarians, and they even
wanted a friend of mine to run for state office on their ticket.
But in short order I found out that their concept of free markets/small
government was basically aimed at:
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".
2. Removing all pollution laws from corporations in the name of "small
government".
I don't know whether big business invented the Libertarian party, or
just bought it outright early on; but the concept of using political
intellectuals as "useful fools" isn't something completely limited to
Leninism.

Pat

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pat Flannery
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".

Good idea.

Post by Pat Flannery
2. Removing all pollution laws from corporations in the name of "small
government".

Governemnt should be limited to enforcing laws that deal with one
person infringing on the health and property of another. Someone spills
mercury into the drinking water, that's one thing. But a corporation
that emits carbon dioxide, or whatever other effectively harmless
scare-of-the-week chemical, or if the groundwater happens to have some
infinitesimal quantity of arsenic or whatever, is something quite a bit
different.

Post by Pat Flannery
I don't know whether big business invented the Libertarian party, or
just bought it outright early on; but the concept of using political
intellectuals as "useful fools" isn't something completely limited to
Leninism.

True. Jihadists use them (such as CNN, the NY Times, John Murtha, etc.)
as well.

[jacob navia]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".

Good idea.

Obviously.

1) Workers die shortly before/immediately after retirement since
they are denied health care. Unemployed/old people are eliminated
in the same way. This is already done in those marvelous
societies of the little insects, the ants. They put all
sick/old workers outside the anthill and they die in a
painful agony of 24 hours. This is already done with
the homeless in the human anthill: homeless people die in
average after 10 years outside. We just have to generalize this
and we would have a bigger anthill.

2) Sick workers are expensive. Better kill them, and save the
health costs. Obviously this isn't applied to the higher ups,
that can afford health care. In general all this drastic measures
are only applied to the lower class. The higher ups are not
concerned, like in the anthills.

3) Worker's rights are a nuisance for the corporations. Eliminate
all of them and reintroduce slavery. This is already done in
most parts of China and we can see that it works. Chinese workers
have almost no rights, work for nothing seven days a week, etc.
When we introduce this in the USA, Europe and all the rest of the
world, true competition can start, since all will be poor.

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
2. Removing all pollution laws from corporations in the name of "small
government".

Governemnt should be limited to enforcing laws that deal with one
person infringing on the health and property of another. Someone spills
mercury into the drinking water, that's one thing. But a corporation
that emits carbon dioxide, or whatever other effectively harmless
scare-of-the-week chemical, or if the groundwater happens to have some
infinitesimal quantity of arsenic or whatever, is something quite a bit
different.

Yes. If someone spills mercury into the drinking water that's bad. But
if a corporation does it, that's OK since only some people die, and
no economical damage happens.

Again, in China this is already done. Pollution kills people by the
millions, poisonous substances are dumped into the rivers because is
cheaper, whole cities rest without drinking water, who cares.

Chinese are cheap.

We have to reintroduce this in USA and Europe. Eliminating all those
stupid pollution laws has the benefical side effect of shortening
worker's lives, so that they die earlier, and do not arrive to less
productive years.

The propositions of the ibertarian party are obviously GREAT. I would
propose that all that benefit from those propositions vote for them.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by jacob navia

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".

Good idea.

Obviously.
1) Workers die shortly before/immediately after retirement since
they are denied health care.

How are they denied health care? Is there some guard at the entrance
blocking them? Why can't they get the best health care they can afford?
That's the same red herring as blaming the HMOs. No HMO has ever forbidden
someone to get a treatment, they have simply refused to pay for certain
treatments. There is nothing stopping the patient from paying for the
treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance instead of beer,
cigarettes or cable TV.

Post by jacob navia
The propositions of the ibertarian party are obviously GREAT.

If you lived in Spain, perhaps.

[jacob navia]

Post by Scott Hedrick

Post by jacob navia

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".

Good idea.

Obviously.
1) Workers die shortly before/immediately after retirement since
they are denied health care.

How are they denied health care?

Because they can't PAY FOR IT dude.

Post by Scott Hedrick
Is there some guard at the entrance
blocking them?

Go to the next clinic, say you are sicj but can't pay
the bill and you will see yourself how it is.

Post by Scott Hedrick
Why can't they get the best health care they can afford?

Because they can't afford any expensive treatment.

Post by Scott Hedrick
That's the same red herring as blaming the HMOs. No HMO has ever forbidden
someone to get a treatment, they have simply refused to pay for certain
treatments. There is nothing stopping the patient from paying for the
treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance instead of beer,
cigarettes or cable TV.

Workers earning the minimum wage (or less) can't afford cable TV...

[[e-mail]]

Post by jacob navia
Go to the next clinic, say you are sicj but can't pay
the bill and you will see yourself how it is.

How is it? It's actually pretty good. I've done it myself, back in my
unemployed and financially strapped days.

Post by jacob navia

Post by Scott Hedrick
Why can't they get the best health care they can afford?

Because they can't afford any expensive treatment.

So? I bet they can't afford armored cars with global positioning
systems and nuclear-biological-chemical protection systems and
automated fire suppression devices, either.

What is "cheap" treatment today would have been miraculous and
blisteringly expensive just a few generations ago.

Post by jacob navia

Post by Scott Hedrick
That's the same red herring as blaming the HMOs. No HMO has ever forbidden
someone to get a treatment, they have simply refused to pay for certain
treatments. There is nothing stopping the patient from paying for the
treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance instead of beer,
cigarettes or cable TV.

Workers earning the minimum wage (or less) can't afford cable TV...

And yet... many have it, because - like medicine - the devices and
infrastructure are cheap. And lots and lots of beer and smokes. These
are the chocies people make.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by jacob navia

Post by Scott Hedrick

Post by jacob navia

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".

Good idea.

Obviously.
1) Workers die shortly before/immediately after retirement since
they are denied health care.

How are they denied health care?

Because they can't PAY FOR IT dude.

THat's *not at all* the same as a denial.

Post by jacob navia

Post by Scott Hedrick
Is there some guard at the entrance blocking them?

Go to the next clinic, say you are sicj but can't pay
the bill and you will see yourself how it is.

Why should anyone get a free ride? Why should you have to pay for my medical
care if you don't want to?

Post by jacob navia

Post by Scott Hedrick
Why can't they get the best health care they can afford?

Because they can't afford any expensive treatment.

And why is that the employer's or government's problem? Take some
responsibility for yourself. Because there is no need for competition, with
guaranteed payers, there's no reason for the provider to contain health care
costs. If you want insurance, *buy it*.

Post by jacob navia

Post by Scott Hedrick
That's the same red herring as blaming the HMOs. No HMO has ever
forbidden someone to get a treatment, they have simply refused to pay for
certain treatments. There is nothing stopping the patient from paying for
the treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance instead of beer,
cigarettes or cable TV.

Workers earning the minimum wage (or less) can't afford cable TV...

The United States has the richest poor people in the world. If you want more
than minimum wage, *be worth more*.

[Gene Cash]

Post by Scott Hedrick
And why is that the employer's or government's problem? Take some
responsibility for yourself. Because there is no need for competition, with
guaranteed payers, there's no reason for the provider to contain health care
costs. If you want insurance, *buy it*.

Sorry, buckwheat. You *CAN'T* and that's the point.

The insurance companies now have a "get out of jail free" card with
respect to certain common activities. If you're injured, they can simply
ignore you, no matter how much money you've paid.

Haven't you been listening?

-gc

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Gene Cash

Post by Scott Hedrick
And why is that the employer's or government's problem? Take some
responsibility for yourself. Because there is no need for competition, with
guaranteed payers, there's no reason for the provider to contain health care
costs. If you want insurance, *buy it*.

Sorry, buckwheat. You *CAN'T* and that's the point.

*You are making my point for me*. Get government *out* of the free market
and you could.

Post by Gene Cash
The insurance companies now have a "get out of jail free" card with
respect to certain common activities.

That's why government control needs to be greatly *relaxed*. Government
should not be telling insurance companies what they *must* provide. That
should be worked out in the contract between the company and the insured.

If you're injured, they can simply

Post by Gene Cash
ignore you, no matter how much money you've paid.

Based on what you've said, it's cause for *less* government intrusion into
the insurance contract.

Post by Gene Cash
Haven't you been listening?

*I* have. *You* haven't. As it happens, most of the title insurance
companies in New Mexico petitioned the government to *lower* rates. Because
the government, not the insurance companies and customers determined the
rate, customers were paying more than needed. The insurance companies wanted
to charge less, because the rate was more fair (that is, risk vs. reward)
and because lower rates would bring more customers. The government refused
to alter rates. Why should the government be setting rates *at all*? It's a
self-correcting problem: if the insurance companies charge too much, they
lose customers, and if they don't charge enough, they go out of business.
Why should the government interfere in that at all? The government in New
Mexico followed your advice and regulated the insurance companies, and as a
result, the customers are *overcharged*, and the insurance companies are not
allowed to charge less. How does this help the insured?

*Read* and understand your insurance contracts, and go to court to enforce
the contract. Government has little reason to be involved, beyond ensuring
that insurance companies remain solvent and providing courts to enforce
contracts. *Government has no business setting rates at all*, the free
market can do that far better.

[p***@prep.synonet.com]

Post by Scott Hedrick
Why should anyone get a free ride? Why should you have to pay for my
medical care if you don't want to?

Not getting TB from you is a very good reason. ;)

Health care is NOT a solitary issue, it is a comunity one. The US is
going to discover this soon I think.

[[e-mail]]

Post by p***@prep.synonet.com

Post by Scott Hedrick
Why should anyone get a free ride? Why should you have to pay for my
medical care if you don't want to?

Not getting TB from you is a very good reason. ;)
Health care is NOT a solitary issue, it is a comunity one.

In *some* cases, yes. in the case of water quality or epidemics, yes,
it's a cummunity issue. In the case of diabetes or motorcycle crash
injuries or burns from meth lab explosions or stab wounds or heart
attacks, it's generally solitary.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by p***@prep.synonet.com

Post by Scott Hedrick
Why should anyone get a free ride? Why should you have to pay for my
medical care if you don't want to?

Not getting TB from you is a very good reason. ;)
Health care is NOT a solitary issue, it is a comunity one. The US is
going to discover this soon I think.

You missed what I said- I said, "Why should you ********have to******** pay
for my medical care if you don't want to?"

This *does not mean* that you cannot volunteer to pay my medical bills,
either directly, by contributing to a charity that pays them or by
voluntarily joining the same insurance company, if any, of which I happen to
be a customer. My problem is with using government to force insurance
providers to cover situations or persons they don't want to cover, and with
taking by the threat of force money that I earned to pay someone else's
medical care.

You and others seem to be under the quite mistaken impression that I don't
care about other people. Quite the contrary- I just don't think the
government should be telling me who I should care about, and, in doing so,
make it that much harder to help those I do care about.

It's the same poor logic used by the lottery- it helps the schools.
Actually, quite a bit less than 1/2 of the lottery money goes to schools,
and all it's done is replace tax money, not added to it. If I want to help
the school, I give the entire dollar directly to the school.

If you want to help pay other folks medical bills, then you should
contribute to a charity, or an insurance pool, *if you want to do so*. The
government *should not* forcibly extract money from you for that purpose.

[Henry Spencer]

...There is nothing stopping the patient from paying for the
treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance instead of beer,
cigarettes or cable TV.

And then pray that it will actually cover what goes wrong. I had some
sympathy with that theory -- not a lot, but some -- until my father-in-law
(a US citizen living in the US) died after some months of serious illness.

He was old enough to be eligible for Medicare. He also had *excellent*
private insurance, about the best you could buy off-the-shelf. And the
patient-pays part was *still* staggering -- we were saved from ugly
decisions only by the fact that he was quite well off and his own assets
easily covered it.

Had he been poor... well, some corners could have been cut -- we knew that
money was not an issue, so we had some things done the expensive way for
modest gains in quality or convenience -- but the minimal reasonable care
would still have cost a bundle.

And this was by no means the worst case. He went from old-but-healthy to
dead in about six months -- not long, as serious illness goes. And his
problems were not the sort where expensive treatments looked helpful.

My own political leanings are distinctly small-L libertarian, but I've
become convinced that medical care belongs under the same heading as
police and fire departments: an important emergency service where the
quality of response shouldn't depend on innocent victims' bankrolls.

[Gene Cash]

Post by Henry Spencer

...There is nothing stopping the patient from paying for the
treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance instead of beer,
cigarettes or cable TV.

And then pray that it will actually cover what goes wrong. I had some
sympathy with that theory -- not a lot, but some -- until my father-in-law
(a US citizen living in the US) died after some months of serious illness.

No kidding. One of the reasons I'm paying my special-interest lobbyists
(American Motorcyclists Association) a lot of money is the fact that
most employee health insurance doesn't pay up if you're injured on a
motorcycle. They'll pay up if you drive drunk and crash your car,
however.

So in this case "buy more health insurance instead of beer" does nothing
for me. Instead I donate $1K or $2K a year to the AMA lobbying^W
Legislative Action fund.

I'm riding a bike because there aren't any competent car-repair people
anywhere in the area, and I got tired of being socked with 4-digit bills
because they couldn't diagnose a bad relay. (Plus I found I actually
enjoy it. <grin>)

-gc

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Gene Cash
No kidding. One of the reasons I'm paying my special-interest lobbyists
(American Motorcyclists Association) a lot of money is the fact that
most employee health insurance doesn't pay up if you're injured on a
motorcycle. They'll pay up if you drive drunk and crash your car,
however.

Why should the government have any say at all in that? Find an insurance
provider that offers what you want. Why should *my* insurance be jacked up
to provide special coverage to you?

On the other hand, as long as you wear a helmet (and a face shield, at least
twice a year in Florida), I say, ride on! Part of driver ed should include
better coverage on paying attention to cyclists.

[jacob navia]

Post by Scott Hedrick

Post by Gene Cash
No kidding. One of the reasons I'm paying my special-interest lobbyists
(American Motorcyclists Association) a lot of money is the fact that
most employee health insurance doesn't pay up if you're injured on a
motorcycle. They'll pay up if you drive drunk and crash your car,
however.

Why should the government have any say at all in that? Find an insurance
provider that offers what you want. Why should *my* insurance be jacked up
to provide special coverage to you?

And the guys that are fragile and get sick very often?

Let them die, so that the rest will pay less insurance!

If a guy gets sick very often he makes the premium policy go upwards
for the rest. Obnoxious. Just let them die and exclude them from
the insurance.


What is important is that each individual is completely left
alone in case anything happens. Either he/she belongs to the
higher ups and can PAY or he/she is worthless and must be eliminated.

This is the reasoning of worthless people.

Humans do carry their sick, their old. Contrary to animals, we
do not let them there to die. That is why we are human.

Not all of us evidently. There are many animals around

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by jacob navia

Post by Scott Hedrick

Post by Gene Cash
No kidding. One of the reasons I'm paying my special-interest lobbyists
(American Motorcyclists Association) a lot of money is the fact that
most employee health insurance doesn't pay up if you're injured on a
motorcycle. They'll pay up if you drive drunk and crash your car,
however.

Why should the government have any say at all in that? Find an insurance
provider that offers what you want. Why should *my* insurance be jacked
up to provide special coverage to you?

And the guys that are fragile and get sick very often?
Let them die, so that the rest will pay less insurance!
If a guy gets sick very often he makes the premium policy go upwards
for the rest. Obnoxious. Just let them die and exclude them from
the insurance.

You have an even better option- go to a different insurance company.

Post by jacob navia
What is important is that each individual is completely left
alone in case anything happens. Either he/she belongs to the
higher ups and can PAY or he/she is worthless and must be eliminated.
This is the reasoning of worthless people.

*You* brought up the value of people, not me or anyone else...says something
about *you*.

The coverage on an insurance policy should be decided by the insurance
provider and its customers- not the government or non-customers.

[Mike Ross]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:59:18 GMT, ***@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

<snip>

Post by Henry Spencer
My own political leanings are distinctly small-L libertarian, but I've
become convinced that medical care belongs under the same heading as
police and fire departments: an important emergency service where the
quality of response shouldn't depend on innocent victims' bankrolls.

<applause>

That's my big problem with libertarianism - as a Brit, coming from the
land of the NHS. It's also my big problem with US taxes; I can't
*believe* we pay so much tax, and it still doesn't buy us free
universal health care.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

[[e-mail]]

Post by Mike Ross
<snip>

Post by Henry Spencer
My own political leanings are distinctly small-L libertarian, but I've
become convinced that medical care belongs under the same heading as
police and fire departments: an important emergency service where the
quality of response shouldn't depend on innocent victims' bankrolls.

<applause>
That's my big problem with libertarianism - as a Brit, coming from the
land of the NHS. It's also my big problem with US taxes; I can't
*believe* we pay so much tax, and it still doesn't buy us free
universal health care.

That's the one good thing about our system. We're paying out the nose
in taxes, but at least it's not goign down the financial and ethical
rat hole that is "universal health care."

The odd thing is that we *do* have universal health care. Here's a
test: go to a city where nobody knows you, ditch all your cash, credit
cards and ID, and step out in front of a bus. What happens? They haul
you to the hospital and patch you up, that's what. If it turns out you
can't pay, the local property owners tend to be the ones footing the
bill.

[Henry Spencer]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

...It's also my big problem with US taxes; I can't
*believe* we pay so much tax, and it still doesn't buy us free
universal health care.

That's the one good thing about our system. We're paying out the nose
in taxes, but at least it's not goign down the financial and ethical
rat hole that is "universal health care."

No, it goes down the financial and ethical rat hole that is the AMA. :-)
You pay a lot more for a given level of health care than people in Canada
or the UK do. Funny how that competitive free market pays (if memory
serves) three times as much for a bag of sterile saline than a Canadian
hospital does.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Henry Spencer

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

...It's also my big problem with US taxes; I can't
*believe* we pay so much tax, and it still doesn't buy us free
universal health care.

That's the one good thing about our system. We're paying out the nose
in taxes, but at least it's not goign down the financial and ethical
rat hole that is "universal health care."

No, it goes down the financial and ethical rat hole that is the AMA. :-)
You pay a lot more for a given level of health care than people in Canada
or the UK do. Funny how that competitive free market pays...

We don't have one of those, especially in the medical field.

[legalize+ (Richard)]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

[...] Funny how that competitive free market pays (if memory
serves) three times as much for a bag of sterile saline than a Canadian
hospital does.

Who told you there's a free market in health care? There isn't.

Health care is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

[p***@prep.synonet.com]

Post by Henry Spencer
No, it goes down the financial and ethical rat hole that is the
AMA. :-) You pay a lot more for a given level of health care than
people in Canada or the UK do. Funny how that competitive free
market pays (if memory serves) three times as much for a bag of
sterile saline than a Canadian hospital does.

Only 3 times? They must be sleeping at the razor.

Aug 01 I was carted off to hospital. Two in fact, first one bailed,
shunted me off and shut down their emergency dept. I had 4 hrs in
theatre, 8 day ICU, and a total of 24 days in hospital all up. Plus
CAT scans, neuro doplers and I don't know what else. It was an
aneurism on the Middle Ceribal Artery that ruptured at about 1:30am.

Anyone care to guess how much it cost me...

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message <***@k9.prep.synonet.com>, ***@prep.synonet.com
writes

Post by p***@prep.synonet.com

Post by Henry Spencer
No, it goes down the financial and ethical rat hole that is the
AMA. :-) You pay a lot more for a given level of health care than
people in Canada or the UK do. Funny how that competitive free
market pays (if memory serves) three times as much for a bag of
sterile saline than a Canadian hospital does.

Only 3 times? They must be sleeping at the razor.
Aug 01 I was carted off to hospital. Two in fact, first one bailed,
shunted me off and shut down their emergency dept. I had 4 hrs in
theatre, 8 day ICU, and a total of 24 days in hospital all up. Plus
CAT scans, neuro doplers and I don't know what else. It was an
aneurism on the Middle Ceribal Artery that ruptured at about 1:30am.
Anyone care to guess how much it cost me...

I suspect that until recently (and in all but a small part of the world)
it would have cost your life, so it was cheap at any price.

[p***@prep.synonet.com]

Post by Jonathan Silverlight
writes

Post by p***@prep.synonet.com

Post by Henry Spencer
No, it goes down the financial and ethical rat hole that is the
AMA. :-) You pay a lot more for a given level of health care than
people in Canada or the UK do. Funny how that competitive free
market pays (if memory serves) three times as much for a bag of
sterile saline than a Canadian hospital does.

Only 3 times? They must be sleeping at the razor.
Aug 01 I was carted off to hospital. Two in fact, first one bailed,
shunted me off and shut down their emergency dept. I had 4 hrs in
theatre, 8 day ICU, and a total of 24 days in hospital all up. Plus
CAT scans, neuro doplers and I don't know what else. It was an
aneurism on the Middle Ceribal Artery that ruptured at about 1:30am.
Anyone care to guess how much it cost me...

I suspect that until recently (and in all but a small part of the
world) it would have cost your life, so it was cheap at any price.

You are not wrong there! Soon after I got out, I was out with a mate
at a local pub. One of his work mates dropped onto the table with 2
teachers he had, ah, found :) They mentioned that a friend of theirs,
also a chalky had also had a bleed and was not good at all. Turns out
she had been sent in to the hospital by her GP for a CAT scan as he
suspected a CA. She was given a packet of Paracetamol and sent home.
Cost the bastards $6.4M, and meant they where on the ball when I was
rolled in.

Mind you, waking up the a neurosurgeon is still a bit off putting! He
had removed a brain toumour from a aunt, and also done a friend's CA 6
years before.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by p***@prep.synonet.com
Anyone care to guess how much it cost me...

Shortly before Desert Storm, I worked in a VA pharmacy, because the person I
replaced got called up and sent to Texas to learn how to build sewer systems
in a desert.

Why is Tylenol the one hospitals use most? Because, to the hospital, at
least, it's *CHEAP*. A drum of 25K, including shipping, was under $20. So
why is it $7 for a bottle of 100 at Wal-Mart?

[Fred J. McCall]

"Scott Hedrick" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

:Why is Tylenol the one hospitals use most? Because, to the hospital, at
:least, it's *CHEAP*. A drum of 25K, including shipping, was under $20. So
:why is it $7 for a bottle of 100 at Wal-Mart?

Volume, packaging, handling, and shipping costs.

[Norman Yarvin]

Post by Henry Spencer
You pay a lot more for a given level of health care than people in Canada
or the UK do. Funny how that competitive free market pays (if memory
serves) three times as much for a bag of sterile saline than a Canadian
hospital does.

Salt water in a plastic bag is something whose intrinsic cost is so low
that the majority of the cost is probably liability insurance. Our legal
system is much more generous to people who have been injured by such
things as contaminated saline -- or who can pretend they have, well
enough to convince a jury.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Salt water in a plastic bag is something whose intrinsic cost is so low that
the majority of the cost is probably liability insurance. Our legal system
is much more generous to people who have been injured by such things as
contaminated saline -- or who can pretend they have, well enough to convince
a jury.

Bullshit. I see you've swallowed the insurance industry Kool Ade that
they've been selling for 40 years. Medmal claims are lower now per
capita than they've ever been, the numbers of claims have been steady
for 40 years and the rates are regulated by state insurance
commissions, which keep stats on claims paid versus premiums charged.
Go look it up if you don't believe me.

Needless to say I won't hold my breath for you to actually go and do
that. It's far too easy to regurgitate sociopolitical economic
propaganda that supports your world view than actually go look at the
numbers.

[Norman Yarvin]

Post by Herb Schaltegger

Post by Norman Yarvin
Salt water in a plastic bag is something whose intrinsic cost is so low
that the majority of the cost is probably liability insurance. Our
legal system is much more generous to people who have been injured by
such things as contaminated saline -- or who can pretend they have,
well enough to convince a jury.

Bullshit. I see you've swallowed the insurance industry Kool Ade that
they've been selling for 40 years. Medmal claims are lower now per
capita than they've ever been, the numbers of claims have been steady
for 40 years and the rates are regulated by state insurance
commissions, which keep stats on claims paid versus premiums charged.
Go look it up if you don't believe me.
Needless to say I won't hold my breath for you to actually go and do
that. It's far too easy to regurgitate sociopolitical economic
propaganda that supports your world view than actually go look at the
numbers.

This has nothing to do with the sorts of numbers you'd have me look up.
This is just about the price of saline solution -- which is merely salt
water in a plastic bag, until something bad gets into it, and cripples or
kills someone, and people stop taking it for granted and start arguing
about how many millions of dollars in damages should be awarded. Even
then, it's not a big part of health care costs. The rise in US health
care costs has much more to do with MRI machines than with saline
solution. But if you look at saline solution in particular, there's no
question that its price is mainly due to the cost of being careful with
it, while it's being made and distributed; otherwise it would cost little
more than Gatorade. And it's mainly the legal system which imposes that
cost, which appears not just in premiums paid to liability insurers, but
also in the costs of the precautions that those insurers demand be
implemented before they will write insurance in the first place.

None of this is an attack on our system, nor for that matter on Canada's;
reasonable people can differ over how much care should be taken with
saline solution, even to the extent that it changes the price by a factor
of three. This was just an attempt to find some reason for the price
difference more plausible than the idea that government bureaucrats are
three times better at reducing prices than the free market is.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Henry Spencer
You pay a lot more for a given level of health care than people in Canada
or the UK do. Funny how that competitive free market pays (if memory
serves) three times as much for a bag of sterile saline than a Canadian
hospital does.

If we actually had a free market, you'd have a point. Because we have a
half-assed national health system as it is, between the VA, Medicare and
Medicaid, nobody has any reason to keep costs down.

Then there's the semi-myth of abusive litigation. It's not nearly as bad as
it appears, but the appearance alone is sufficient to drive the money folks
apeshit. After I wrote a paper on pharmacist liability, I visited a pharmacy
in Mexico and interviewed the proprietor thereof. The biggest difference in
costs is *attitude*. Because there is no personal responsibility for health
care in the US, it's time to stick it to the man. In Mexico, the cost of
living is lower, and with extended families, help is more readily available,
and, while the laws are similar, folks are just less likely to sue in
Mexico. On the other hand, with the absurd level of corruption in Mexico,
it's also harder to get truly incompetent doctors to stop their practice.

A truly open marketplace, with real competition between providers and
insurance companies, *along with an educated public*, would cause health
care costs to plummet. The public prefers to let the government and big
business do its thinking for it.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Scott Hedrick" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

:After I wrote a paper on pharmacist liability, I visited a pharmacy
:in Mexico and interviewed the proprietor thereof. The biggest difference in
:costs is *attitude*.

Horseshit. The biggest difference in costs is that the pharmaceutical
companies charge more here in the US ** BECAUSE THEY CAN **.

[jacob navia]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:After I wrote a paper on pharmacist liability, I visited a pharmacy
:in Mexico and interviewed the proprietor thereof. The biggest difference in
:costs is *attitude*.
Horseshit. The biggest difference in costs is that the pharmaceutical
companies charge more here in the US ** BECAUSE THEY CAN **.

EXACTLY

"FREE" market doesn't work with doctors, and medicine in general.

If you are sick you will pay anything to go on living. There is
no choice but to go to a doctor.

In Chile, for instance, a country labelled as a model in "modern"
health care, you have to sign a blank check when you go to the clinic.

The doctors fill the check.

There is NO social security, if you are poor there is no medicine
for you. And if you are rich, you are rich only till the first time
you get seriously ill.

Then it is over. You have worked your whole life for the doctors
and the pharmaceutical industry.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by jacob navia
"FREE" market doesn't work with doctors, and medicine in general.

How would you know? Where have you seen a truly free market in matters
medical? Not in the United States, at least not for the last several
decades.

[John Schilling]

Post by jacob navia

Post by Fred J. McCall
:After I wrote a paper on pharmacist liability, I visited a pharmacy
:in Mexico and interviewed the proprietor thereof. The biggest difference in
:costs is *attitude*.
Horseshit. The biggest difference in costs is that the pharmaceutical
companies charge more here in the US ** BECAUSE THEY CAN **.

EXACTLY
"FREE" market doesn't work with doctors, and medicine in general.
If you are sick you will pay anything to go on living. There is
no choice but to go to a doctor.

And if you are hungry, you will pay anything to go on eating. There
is no choice but to go to a grocery market, or a restaurant.

Yet the free market works quite well for providing people with food,
of good quality and at reasonable cost. There would seem to be
something missing from your argument that it cannot likewise provide
people with medical care of good quality and at reasonable cost.

[jacob navia]

Post by John Schilling

Post by jacob navia

Post by Fred J. McCall
:After I wrote a paper on pharmacist liability, I visited a pharmacy
:in Mexico and interviewed the proprietor thereof. The biggest difference in
:costs is *attitude*.
Horseshit. The biggest difference in costs is that the pharmaceutical
companies charge more here in the US ** BECAUSE THEY CAN **.

EXACTLY
"FREE" market doesn't work with doctors, and medicine in general.
If you are sick you will pay anything to go on living. There is
no choice but to go to a doctor.

And if you are hungry, you will pay anything to go on eating. There
is no choice but to go to a grocery market, or a restaurant.
Yet the free market works quite well for providing people with food,
of good quality and at reasonable cost. There would seem to be
something missing from your argument that it cannot likewise provide
people with medical care of good quality and at reasonable cost.

The answer is that the free market does not exist for the pharma
industry but it does exist for restaurants and groceries.

Pharma industry is dominated by very few, HUGE companies.
Restaurants/groceries are markets where there is a HUGE number of
participants, i.e. market efficiency is big, since you have
a lot of competing providers.

In the pharma industry case, you have very few providers at the
top. There is more competition when you go to the clinics market,
but price arrangements between clinics makes competition inexistent
in many situations.

There is still more competition at the doctor level, where you have
much more efficient markets with millions of providers. Yes, you
can try next doctor, but even there you may not have a choice.

The trend in modern capitalism is to eliminate market efficiency and
concurrency by establishing huge monopolies. Pharma industry is
achieving this goal almost, with a few companies left, that work
worldwide.

This leads to marketing dominated medicine, where you can kill
millions of human beings just because they have no money to
pay the treatments. AIDS medicine and African patients are one extreme
example, but there are more.

Market dominated medicine has always existed, but now it is becoming
pervasive. Doctors will diagnose the sickness that is more profitable
for them to treat, and will make unnecessary operations in healthy
patients just to earn money.

The dentist that makes the hole in your teeth to take you the money is
a very old phenomenon. But it can be generalized, and, like the
mechanic that diagnoses an inexistent failure in the motor of your
perfectly OK car, leads to more profits for doctors/pharma and less
health for everyone.

You took out the example of Chile, so I can give you the same
example from China, where we have now a fully profit oriented system,
that destroyed the previous system based on medicine and built
a new system based on profit maximization for doctors/clinics/and
the pharma industry. Poor people are excluded, rich people are
ruined, and in general, there are no more doctors that will
try to cure you but merchants that will try to ruin you to take
your money.

You get what you pay for.

Go ahead, there is no return. The U.S., Europe, and all other
countries will evolve profit oriented medical systems, that
will destroy all advances of modern medicine for most of us.

People discussing this issues here are in good health.

Now.

That will not last forever.

jacob

[Fred J. McCall]

Mike Ross <***@corestore.org> wrote:

:On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:59:18 GMT, ***@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
:wrote:
:
:<snip>
:
:>My own political leanings are distinctly small-L libertarian, but I've
:>become convinced that medical care belongs under the same heading as
:>police and fire departments: an important emergency service where the
:>quality of response shouldn't depend on innocent victims' bankrolls.
:
:That's my big problem with libertarianism - as a Brit, coming from the
:land of the NHS. It's also my big problem with US taxes; I can't
:*believe* we pay so much tax, and it still doesn't buy us free
:universal health care.

I'd rather pay US taxes than UK taxes - and so would a lot of folks
from the UK with substantial monetary resources. It's why they move
here.

What you cite isn't a problem with 'libertarianism', per se, although
it is certainly a major problem with the US Libertarian Party.

Some things are 'market failures'. Those things require some
government intervention. The real issue is what those things are.
Medical care may indeed be one of them, from several different
directions.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Henry Spencer
My own political leanings are distinctly small-L libertarian, but I've
become convinced that medical care belongs under the same heading as
police and fire departments: an important emergency service where the
quality of response shouldn't depend on innocent victims' bankrolls.

Reply 1) And then what *should* "quality of response" be based on? If
everyone can expect to have society throw millions of dollars at
maintaining their lives using the latest medical hi-tech, why should
they not also expect society to foot their food and housing bills?
Because if medicine is needed, you can bet your ass that food sure as
hell is. And "good housing is a basic human right" is a bleat I'm
hearing more and more from the socialist crowd.


Reply 2) If "quality of response" is not to be based on what you can
afford, that means it would have to be *illegal* for a rich guy to
plunk down a bajillion dolllars for some insanely expensive
experimental treatment. And then that treatment, no matter how
expensive and minimally useful, would have to be made "freely"
available to *everyone.*

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
And "good housing is a basic human right" is a bleat I'm
hearing more and more from the socialist crowd.

And note that none of them are willing to volunteer for Habitat for
Humanity. I wonder how much better the world would be if all the sorry
bastards that have the time to riot outside a G-8 meeting used that same
time employed, and then donated their pay to whatever cause they would
rather riot over.

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
Reply 2) If "quality of response" is not to be based on what you can
afford, that means it would have to be *illegal* for a rich guy to
plunk down a bajillion dolllars for some insanely expensive
experimental treatment. And then that treatment, no matter how
expensive and minimally useful, would have to be made "freely"
available to *everyone.*

Contrary to what some people think, it's not possible to *not* ration health
care. There is simply a finite amount of money available. If 100% of
government funding were spent on health care (thus letting the military,
roads, education, etc. rot), there would *still* be limits. It's just not
politically correct to call it rationing- just ask Oregon.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Henry Spencer
My own political leanings are distinctly small-L libertarian, but I've
become convinced that medical care belongs under the same heading as
police and fire departments: an important emergency service where the
quality of response shouldn't depend on innocent victims' bankrolls.

Fortunately, when it comes to such things, there are no "innocent victims".
The *only* way that anyone can have a *right* to health care is if *someone
else* is forced to do something against their will.

When it comes to my right to free speech, I have the right to talk, and that
imposes no obligation whatsoever on anyone else. But if I have a *right* to
health care, someone else *must* do something they may not want to do- it
could be a doctor who must provide services (even if he doesn't want to-
after all, inherent in the right to health care is the right to force
against their will a health care provider to provide it), or someone who
doesn't know me who is forced to provide funds. As soon as something
requires action on the part of another, it ceases to be a right.

What's wrong with charity? Why should I provide funds to charity when I am
forced at the point of a gun to pay for someone's health care that I don't
even know? Just as important, why should your father-in-law have been taxed
to pay for my health care? Assuming he liked you, he should have contributed
to *your* health needs if he could afford it.

I don't have a problem with an employer voluntarily providing insurance- but
I have a big problem with being forced to pay for the care of others. I know
people locally I'd like to help, if I weren't being forced to pay for people
I don't know.

With voluntary insurance, even though it covers people I don't know, I'm not
*forced* to do it- that's part of the agreement. I don't have the option of
funding Medicare, even though I don't qualify to get it.

A right is unfair and unreasonable if it requires action on the part of
others in order to be exercised.

[Gene Cash]

Post by Scott Hedrick
How are they denied health care? Is there some guard at the entrance
blocking them? Why can't they get the best health care they can
afford? That's the same red herring as blaming the HMOs. No HMO has
ever forbidden someone to get a treatment, they have simply refused to
pay for certain treatments. There is nothing stopping the patient from
paying for the treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance
instead of beer, cigarettes or cable TV.

http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/rapidresponse.asp

"U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) recently introduced S. 577, "The
HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act." Last Congress, the
full Senate unanimously passed similar legislation. S. 577 aims at
ending health care discrimination for individuals participating in legal
transportation and recreational activities-activities like motorcycling,
snowmobiling, horseback riding, skiing and all-terrain vehicle
riding. This legislation addresses a loophole caused by a Department of
Health and Human Services' rule making it possible for health care
benefits to be denied to those who are injured while participating in
these activities."

So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.

There is no language in the policy that notifies you of this either, you
just find out when they refuse to pay for your medical care.

I'm sure this is just one example and there are more out there if I
spent more effort digging.

*THIS* is how they're denied health care.

-gc

[Mike Ross]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:22:44 GMT, Gene Cash <***@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

<big snip>

Post by Gene Cash
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.
There is no language in the policy that notifies you of this either, you
just find out when they refuse to pay for your medical care.

I don't get this; if it isn't in the policy it ain't worth the paper
it is(n't) written on, surely?

If it came to a court case all that would matter is what was clear, in
black and white, in the polciy, surely? Someone must have sued and won
on this? If they sued and lost, why?

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

[Gene Cash]

Post by Mike Ross
<big snip>

Post by Gene Cash
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.
There is no language in the policy that notifies you of this either, you
just find out when they refuse to pay for your medical care.

I don't get this; if it isn't in the policy it ain't worth the paper
it is(n't) written on, surely?
If it came to a court case all that would matter is what was clear, in
black and white, in the polciy, surely? Someone must have sued and won
on this? If they sued and lost, why?

Apparently it's a "a Department of Health and Human Services' rule
making it possible for health care benefits to be denied"

"The rules recognize that employers cannot refuse health care coverage
to an employee on the basis of their participation in a recognized
recreational activity. However, the benefits can be denied for injuries
sustained in connection with those activities. Essentially, the
regulation grants equal status to motorcyclists without any substantive
benefits."

It looks (to me) like they say "you're covered. for nothing."

It seems the governmental department that oversees the health insurance
companies says it's ok.

So you sue them and they point to this rule.

Also apparently it's against Congress' express intentions which is why
it's the "Technical Correction Act"

This also covers snowmobiling, skiing, and horseback riding as well as
motorcycles.

-gc

[[e-mail]]

Post by Gene Cash
"The rules recognize that employers cannot refuse health care coverage
to an employee on the basis of their participation in a recognized
recreational activity. However, the benefits can be denied for injuries
sustained in connection with those activities. Essentially, the
regulation grants equal status to motorcyclists without any substantive
benefits."
It looks (to me) like they say "you're covered. for nothing."

No, it looks more like you're covered for injuries sustained *apart*
from those activities, which makes sense. A snowmobiler, say, would be
covered if he got in a car wreck or got cancer, but not if he got in a
snowmobile wreck.

[p***@prep.synonet.com]

Post by Gene Cash
This also covers snowmobiling, skiing, and horseback riding as well
as motorcycles.

But not flying, gliding, hanggliding or a quick trip to the Space Station.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Gene Cash
Apparently it's a "a Department of Health and Human Services' rule
making it possible for health care benefits to be denied"

So, it's not in the policy, it's a matter of *publically available law*,
which you failed to read. You're not getting screwed, you just got lazy.

Yes, I *do* check such things. Nearly always before I sign.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Gene Cash
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.

And tell me: what's wrong with that? If you plan on putting yourself in
harm's way, why should your coverage cost the same as some guy who
*doesn't* get his rocks off by trying to kill himself?

Post by Gene Cash
There is no language in the policy that notifies you of this either, you
just find out when they refuse to pay for your medical care.

Now, *that* is wrong. However, making the blacklisted activities known
up front, and makign the options for additional coverage for those
activities, *does* make sense.

Post by Gene Cash
*THIS* is how they're denied health care.

Don't do stupid things. If you do, don't expect society to pick up the
tab for you.

[Henry Spencer]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Gene Cash
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.

And tell me: what's wrong with that? If you plan on putting yourself in
harm's way, why should your coverage cost the same as some guy who
*doesn't* get his rocks off by trying to kill himself?

The most dangerous part of, e.g., horseback riding is probably driving
your car to the riding stable. So why is the driving covered and the
riding excluded?

I can see exclusion, or extra premiums, for truly dangerous activities,
like climbing Everest. But horseback riding? Motorcycling?

[[e-mail]]

Post by Henry Spencer

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Gene Cash
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.

And tell me: what's wrong with that? If you plan on putting yourself in
harm's way, why should your coverage cost the same as some guy who
*doesn't* get his rocks off by trying to kill himself?

The most dangerous part of, e.g., horseback riding is probably driving
your car to the riding stable. So why is the driving covered and the
riding excluded?

Driving a car is a standard thing virtually everyone who pays for
insurance has to do. Driving from Point A to Point B is simple
transportation. But horseback riding, snowboarding, offroading, BMX
riding, etc., these are leisure activities that put you in particular
risk.

Post by Henry Spencer
I can see exclusion, or extra premiums, for truly dangerous activities,
like climbing Everest. But horseback riding? Motorcycling?

If the statistics show that someone who engages in such activities are
more likely to be calling upon their insurance companies due to these
activities, then it makes sense to charge them more. Someone busting
their ass riding a horse might be only slightly more prevalant than
someone not riding a horse, but when you multiply that slight extra
chance by tens or hundreds of thousands of people, you start getting
into real money.

[Gene Cash]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
Driving a car is a standard thing virtually everyone who pays for
insurance has to do.

No it's not. For instance, I don't even HAVE a car.

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
Driving from Point A to Point B is simple

Bullshit. People find it very difficult to safely drive from point A to
point B. More people die in car "accidents" in the US in a month than
have been killed in the entire Iraq war.

I've had several friends die in car crashes, and my Camaro tried to kill
me when the ABS brakes failed due to a bad wheel sensor.

Sigh. I'm feeding the troll myself.

-gc

[[e-mail]]

Post by Gene Cash

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
Driving a car is a standard thing virtually everyone who pays for
insurance has to do.

No it's not. For instance, I don't even HAVE a car.

Apparently you seemed to have missed the "virtually" before the
"everyone."

Post by Gene Cash

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
Driving from Point A to Point B is simple

Bullshit. People find it very difficult to safely drive from point A to
point B.

Bullshit.

Post by Gene Cash
More people die in car "accidents" in the US in a month than
have been killed in the entire Iraq war.

This is not due to inheirant difficulty in the task, but due to the
vast number of people performing the task many, many times.

Post by Gene Cash
Sigh. I'm feeding the troll myself.

Yes, you are apparently a troll, if you believe that basic driving is
more dangerous than dirtbiking.

[Fred J. McCall]

"***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

:
:Henry Spencer wrote:
:> In article <***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
:> ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:> >> So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
:> >> up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.
:> >
:> >And tell me: what's wrong with that? If you plan on putting yourself in
:> >harm's way, why should your coverage cost the same as some guy who
:> >*doesn't* get his rocks off by trying to kill himself?
:>
:> The most dangerous part of, e.g., horseback riding is probably driving
:> your car to the riding stable. So why is the driving covered and the
:> riding excluded?
:
:Driving a car is a standard thing virtually everyone who pays for
:insurance has to do. Driving from Point A to Point B is simple
:transportation. But horseback riding, snowboarding, offroading, BMX
:riding, etc., these are leisure activities that put you in particular
:risk.
:
:> I can see exclusion, or extra premiums, for truly dangerous activities,
:> like climbing Everest. But horseback riding? Motorcycling?
:
:If the statistics show that someone who engages in such activities are
:more likely to be calling upon their insurance companies due to these
:activities, then it makes sense to charge them more. Someone busting
:their ass riding a horse might be only slightly more prevalant than
:someone not riding a horse, but when you multiply that slight extra
:chance by tens or hundreds of thousands of people, you start getting
:into real money.

But the point behind insurance is 'risk pooling'. That means you
charge everyone in the pool a little bit extra to cover these
activities on the part of some or else you force them into a different
'pool' (which, when done aggressively enough, sort of obviates the
idea behind insurance).

[[e-mail]]

Post by Fred J. McCall
But the point behind insurance is 'risk pooling'. That means you
charge everyone in the pool a little bit extra to cover these
activities on the part of some or else you force them into a different
'pool'

Correct. That's why non-smokers are charged less for insurance than
smokers. Those with good driving records pay less for auto insurance
than those who get speeding tickets regularly. Those who insist on
building their homes in known flood areas (along certain stretches of
certain rivers, or below sea level like NOLA) pay more for flood
insurance - -if they can get it - than someone who builds on top of a
hill. Why should a teetotalling nonsmoker who obeys the laws and lives
a fairly calm life have to pay the same insurance rates as a chain
smoker who regularly gets likkered up and tear-asses through town in a
seat-belt-less 1978 Trans Am?

In other words, why reward excess and stupidity and carelessness and
punish reasonable behavior?

Post by Fred J. McCall
(which, when done aggressively enough, sort of obviates the
idea behind insurance).

Define "aggressively enough."

[Fred J. McCall]

"***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:> But the point behind insurance is 'risk pooling'. That means you
:> charge everyone in the pool a little bit extra to cover these
:> activities on the part of some or else you force them into a different
:> 'pool'
:
:Correct. That's why non-smokers are charged less for insurance than
:smokers. Those with good driving records pay less for auto insurance
:than those who get speeding tickets regularly. Those who insist on
:building their homes in known flood areas (along certain stretches of
:certain rivers, or below sea level like NOLA) pay more for flood
:insurance - -if they can get it - than someone who builds on top of a
:hill. Why should a teetotalling nonsmoker who obeys the laws and lives
:a fairly calm life have to pay the same insurance rates as a chain
:smoker who regularly gets likkered up and tear-asses through town in a
:seat-belt-less 1978 Trans Am?
:
:In other words, why reward excess and stupidity and carelessness and
:punish reasonable behavior?

I'm not interested in stupid Libertarian arguments, no matter what
strawmen you erect.

:> (which, when done aggressively enough, sort of obviates the
:> idea behind insurance).
:
:Define "aggressively enough."

Subdivide the pools small enough so that everyone in it is exactly the
same with regard to risk. At that point everyone is pretty much in
their own risk pool and there's no point to insurance.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:> But the point behind insurance is 'risk pooling'. That means you
:> charge everyone in the pool a little bit extra to cover these
:> activities on the part of some or else you force them into a different
:> 'pool'
:Correct. That's why non-smokers are charged less for insurance than
:smokers. Those with good driving records pay less for auto insurance
:than those who get speeding tickets regularly. Those who insist on
:building their homes in known flood areas (along certain stretches of
:certain rivers, or below sea level like NOLA) pay more for flood
:insurance - -if they can get it - than someone who builds on top of a
:hill. Why should a teetotalling nonsmoker who obeys the laws and lives
:a fairly calm life have to pay the same insurance rates as a chain
:smoker who regularly gets likkered up and tear-asses through town in a
:seat-belt-less 1978 Trans Am?
:In other words, why reward excess and stupidity and carelessness and
:punish reasonable behavior?
I'm not interested in stupid Libertarian arguments....

But apparently stupid Socialist arguements make you feel all warm and
fuzzy, eh?

Post by Fred J. McCall
no matter what strawmen you erect.

And what strawman woudl that be? Or do you assume that it's flawed to
assume that risky behavior brings risk?

Post by Fred J. McCall
Subdivide the pools small enough so that everyone in it is exactly the
same with regard to risk. At that point everyone is pretty much in
their own risk pool and there's no point to insurance.

Hogwash.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Fred J. McCall
Subdivide the pools small enough so that everyone in it is exactly the
same with regard to risk. At that point everyone is pretty much in
their own risk pool and there's no point to insurance.

Hogwash.

Speaking of which, what are the insurance actuarial tables for the pork
industry like anyway?
I'm sure they must be pretty dire for the pigs. ;-)

Pat

[Fred J. McCall]

"***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :
:> :> But the point behind insurance is 'risk pooling'. That means you
:> :> charge everyone in the pool a little bit extra to cover these
:> :> activities on the part of some or else you force them into a different
:> :> 'pool'
:> :
:> :Correct. That's why non-smokers are charged less for insurance than
:> :smokers. Those with good driving records pay less for auto insurance
:> :than those who get speeding tickets regularly. Those who insist on
:> :building their homes in known flood areas (along certain stretches of
:> :certain rivers, or below sea level like NOLA) pay more for flood
:> :insurance - -if they can get it - than someone who builds on top of a
:> :hill. Why should a teetotalling nonsmoker who obeys the laws and lives
:> :a fairly calm life have to pay the same insurance rates as a chain
:> :smoker who regularly gets likkered up and tear-asses through town in a
:> :seat-belt-less 1978 Trans Am?
:> :
:> :In other words, why reward excess and stupidity and carelessness and
:> :punish reasonable behavior?
:>
:> I'm not interested in stupid Libertarian arguments....
:
:But apparently stupid Socialist arguements make you feel all warm and
:fuzzy, eh?

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. Merely thinking YOU are an idiot does
not make one either stupid or a Socialist (or even a socialist).

:> no matter what strawmen you erect.
:
:And what strawman woudl that be? Or do you assume that it's flawed to
:assume that risky behavior brings risk?

Well, there's another fine example of you talking to yourself. It
hardly seems necessary for anyone else to bother, then.

:> Subdivide the pools small enough so that everyone in it is exactly the
:> same with regard to risk. At that point everyone is pretty much in
:> their own risk pool and there's no point to insurance.
:
:Hogwash.

Drinking your own bathwater again, are you?

[[e-mail]]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> :> But the point behind insurance is 'risk pooling'. That means you
:> :> charge everyone in the pool a little bit extra to cover these
:> :> activities on the part of some or else you force them into a different
:> :> 'pool'
:> :Correct. That's why non-smokers are charged less for insurance than
:> :smokers. Those with good driving records pay less for auto insurance
:> :than those who get speeding tickets regularly. Those who insist on
:> :building their homes in known flood areas (along certain stretches of
:> :certain rivers, or below sea level like NOLA) pay more for flood
:> :insurance - -if they can get it - than someone who builds on top of a
:> :hill. Why should a teetotalling nonsmoker who obeys the laws and lives
:> :a fairly calm life have to pay the same insurance rates as a chain
:> :smoker who regularly gets likkered up and tear-asses through town in a
:> :seat-belt-less 1978 Trans Am?
:> :In other words, why reward excess and stupidity and carelessness and
:> :punish reasonable behavior?
:>
:> I'm not interested in stupid Libertarian arguments....
:But apparently stupid Socialist arguements make you feel all warm and
:fuzzy, eh?
Sorry, but that doesn't follow.

It does in your case. You cast insults ("stupid") in response to a
non-insultingly described political notion. Since the opposite of the
notion you disparage is Socialism, it's a simple matter to draw the
conclusion.


Merely thinking YOU are an idiot does

Post by Fred J. McCall
not make one either stupid or a Socialist (or even a socialist).

Nor does it make you correct. It does indicate a certain lack of
intellectual rigor, however, since the only response you can come up
with to "why reward excess and stupidity and carelessness and punish
reasonable behavior" is to cast insults.

Post by Fred J. McCall
:> no matter what strawmen you erect.
:And what strawman woudl that be? Or do you assume that it's flawed to
:assume that risky behavior brings risk?
Well, there's another fine example of you talking to yourself.

Since you refuse to answer the question...

[Gene Cash]

Post by Henry Spencer

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Gene Cash
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.

And tell me: what's wrong with that? If you plan on putting yourself in
harm's way, why should your coverage cost the same as some guy who
*doesn't* get his rocks off by trying to kill himself?

Henry, why are you feeding the troll?

Post by Henry Spencer
The most dangerous part of, e.g., horseback riding is probably driving
your car to the riding stable. So why is the driving covered and the
riding excluded?

Hell, driving DRUNK is covered. Go figure.

Post by Henry Spencer
I can see exclusion, or extra premiums, for truly dangerous activities,
like climbing Everest. But horseback riding? Motorcycling?

Does it have to make sense? From what I can tell these are classed as
"dangerous recreational activities" and the Department of Health and
Human Services obviously felt they wouldn't be called to task over them.

The major problem (in my eyes) is this isn't an obvious exclusion. You
don't find out about this shit until your bills get rejected or your
lobbyist group tells you about it.

If there was a paragraph saying "activities A, B and C are not covered"
then you could do something about it, and indeed there's a law against
it. However there isn't a law against "activities A, B and C are covered
with a zero reimbursement" yet. This seems to be the loophole.

I will be getting a copy of my insurance policy this week and reading it
very carefully.

-gc

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Henry Spencer
I can see exclusion, or extra premiums, for truly dangerous activities,
like climbing Everest. But horseback riding? Motorcycling?

Ask the provider.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Gene Cash

Post by Scott Hedrick
How are they denied health care? Is there some guard at the entrance
blocking them? Why can't they get the best health care they can
afford? That's the same red herring as blaming the HMOs. No HMO has
ever forbidden someone to get a treatment, they have simply refused to
pay for certain treatments. There is nothing stopping the patient from
paying for the treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance
instead of beer, cigarettes or cable TV.

http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/rapidresponse.asp
"U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) recently introduced S. 577, "The
HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act." Last Congress, the
full Senate unanimously passed similar legislation. S. 577 aims at
ending health care discrimination for individuals participating in legal
transportation and recreational activities-activities like motorcycling,
snowmobiling, horseback riding, skiing and all-terrain vehicle
riding. This legislation addresses a loophole caused by a Department of
Health and Human Services' rule making it possible for health care
benefits to be denied to those who are injured while participating in
these activities."
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.

So, either *change health care providers* or *don't do whatever it is your
current insurance won't pay for*. I don't see it as a government problem.
It's just easier to get the government to do your thinking for you than to
take responsibility for your own health care.

Post by Gene Cash
There is no language in the policy that notifies you of this either, you
just find out when they refuse to pay for your medical care.

Horseshit. Clearly, you don't read your policy, or you don't ask questions
about the parts you don't understand. Why don't you post a link to where the
full text of your insurance policy is available?

Post by Gene Cash
*THIS* is how they're denied health care.

The insurance company forbids a doctor to perform a treatment, even if the
insurance company isn't paying for it? More horseshit. How could the
insurance company forbid a treatment if *you, yourself* are paying for it
directly?

[John Schilling]

Post by Gene Cash

Post by Scott Hedrick
How are they denied health care? Is there some guard at the entrance
blocking them? Why can't they get the best health care they can
afford? That's the same red herring as blaming the HMOs. No HMO has
ever forbidden someone to get a treatment, they have simply refused to
pay for certain treatments. There is nothing stopping the patient from
paying for the treatment on their own. Buy more health insurance
instead of beer, cigarettes or cable TV.

http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/rapidresponse.asp
"U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) recently introduced S. 577, "The
HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act." Last Congress, the
full Senate unanimously passed similar legislation. S. 577 aims at
ending health care discrimination for individuals participating in legal
transportation and recreational activities-activities like motorcycling,
snowmobiling, horseback riding, skiing and all-terrain vehicle
riding. This legislation addresses a loophole caused by a Department of
Health and Human Services' rule making it possible for health care
benefits to be denied to those who are injured while participating in
these activities."
So even if you've paid your insurance in full, they can tell you to piss
up a rope if you've been injured by one of their blacklisted activities.

Well, yes, just like my homeowner's insurance will tell me to bugger off
if my house burns down because the still in the garage exploded. Or, for
that matter, if it falls down in an earthquake or gets flooded. Those
aren't the risks they agreed to insure against, so they aren't *supposed*
to pay for them.

I can, as a private citizen, buy insurance that does cover me against
floods, earthquakes, or exploding stills. And I can buy insurance that
covers medical costs due to motorcycle accidents; that's a common enough
thing to have been pretty much commoditized.

It does, of course, cost extra. How much extra, depends on the magnitude
of the risk, and the degree of reassurance you can provide re your risk
management. All of which is quite proper.


But:

If you insist on being covered by a one-size-fits-all policy that someone
else pays for, whether that someone be the corporation that employs you
or the government that rules you, you *won't* get coverage for any unusual
risks you chose to accept. Once that someone else realizes that they are
paying a disproportionate ammount in benefits to e.g. motorcyclists, the
*best* you can hope for is that you won't be covered for injuries incurred
while motorcycling. Quite possibly, motorcycling will void your coverage
entirely, or will be banned outright in the name of "safety".

Government bureaucracies, and insurance companies, are quite conservative
things. Health insurance crossed with motorcycles, is new enough that
we still haven't reached equilibrium in that regard.


But it baffles me that anyone with a passing familarity with economics,
would be at all surprised at how the system is evolving.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by John Schilling
But it baffles me that anyone with a passing familarity with economics,
would be at all surprised at how the system is evolving.

I'd call that one a "duh!", accepting that would mean some folks have to
*also* reject certain Socialist arguements.

[Craig Fink]

Everything you just said is even more true of Government sponsored Health
Care and Retirement Benefits. It's in the best interests of the Government
financially to get as many retired people off the books as possible. They
don't continue paying Social Security or Medicare benefits after you and
your spouse die. It's not an annuity.

You have to look at who really has your best interests at heart, and that
would be you. Not, an Insurance company or the Government, who actually
benefit and save money by a retired persons demise. Only you and your
family really care.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ ***@GMail.Com
--

Post by jacob navia
Obviously.
1) Workers die shortly before/immediately after retirement since
they are denied health care. Unemployed/old people are eliminated
in the same way. This is already done in those marvelous
societies of the little insects, the ants. They put all
sick/old workers outside the anthill and they die in a
painful agony of 24 hours. This is already done with
the homeless in the human anthill: homeless people die in
average after 10 years outside. We just have to generalize this
and we would have a bigger anthill.
2) Sick workers are expensive. Better kill them, and save the
health costs. Obviously this isn't applied to the higher ups,
that can afford health care. In general all this drastic measures
are only applied to the lower class. The higher ups are not
concerned, like in the anthills.
3) Worker's rights are a nuisance for the corporations. Eliminate
all of them and reintroduce slavery. This is already done in
most parts of China and we can see that it works. Chinese workers
have almost no rights, work for nothing seven days a week, etc.
When we introduce this in the USA, Europe and all the rest of the
world, true competition can start, since all will be poor.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Pat Flannery
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care,

Which *should not be* the obligation of the employer. You want health
insurance, buy it. It's because it's mandatory that the insurance companies
don't have to be competitive and can charge so much.

Post by Pat Flannery
unemployment insurance,

Which is the obligation of the union or the individual.

Post by Pat Flannery
and the minimum wage in he name of "free markets".

The creation of the parental government, an assumption that you are too
stupid to decide for yourself what your labor is worth. If the potential
employer isn't offering what you think you are worth, *go somewhere else*.
Duh! And if no other employer will offer any more, then *you are not worth
more*. If you want more, be worth more.

I've worked both sides of the fence. The employer isn't your mommy or daddy
any more than the government is. Take some responsibility for yourself for a
change.

[Craig Fink]

lol, what, you only found two things wrong with the Libertarian Party?
Both of them wrong, you might actually be a Libertarian.

One of the core beliefs of most Libertarians is that your rights end where
my rights begin. You are at Liberty to do whatever you want as long as you
don't violate the rights of others. If you do, that is a function of
Government.

2. Pollution most definitely falls into this category. Dump pollutants into
the air, water, land, or space most definitely is a violation of the
rights of others, now and future generations. CO2, a fertilizer and
pollutant, causes global warming, acidification of the Oceans. The
evidences is becoming overwhelming. To continue to ignore the problem,
really to continue accelerating it, is just plain stupid. A global
experiment to see how Earth's climate control systems works and quite
possibly breaks. A Global problem that must be addressed Globally.

Some of the more controversial stands the Libertarian Party takes, I
would have thought you would have listed, are:

Prostitution, the legalization of. Prostitutes rights are being violated
when their profession hurts no one, an exchange of this for that. Immoral,
yes. Should anyone participate, no. Should it be tolerated, yes. Should it
be regulated/monitored, yes. Should it be taxed, yes. Should there be age
limit, yes. Should they be allowed to advertise, no. Or, is it yes, only
negative advertising.

Drugs, the legalization of. Same as the prostitutes, as long as they don't
violate the rights of others. Prohibition, the illegal part of "illegal
drugs" cause 80-90% of all the problems wrt drugs. The act of Prohibition
does far more harm to society than the drugs we're prohibiting.

Gambling, the legalization of. Same as prostitution and drugs. Wait,
hummm, many State governments are currently sponsoring this immoral act
under the guise of "Educating" Americas children. What kind of message
does that send our children?

Tobacco, the continued legalization of. Same as ... Well, this ill in our
Society comes the closest to Libertarian ideals. Tolerated, looked down
upon, rights of others beginning to be preserved, negative advertising
(not quite there yet), taxed (growing sin tax), regulated, age limits.

Gay Marriage, the legalization of. Marriage should really be in the
Religious realm not in the governments, and many of the laws conveying
benefits should be reviewed and or revised in the light of gay people
wanting to marry, and/or Muslims and some Christians wanting more than one
wife or husband. Toleration of the beliefs of others.

Morals, should be taught not legislated in a Society were Church and State
are separate. Immoral acts, were the person or persons are only harming
themselves should be tolerated, regulated, taxed but not encouraged.

Education is the cure for the disease, not a big stick and lot of
violence. Which brings us to another Libertarian ideal.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ ***@GMail.Com
--

Post by Pat Flannery
I can remember when I first heard of the Libertarians, and they even
wanted a friend of mine to run for state office on their ticket.
But in short order I found out that their concept of free markets/small
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".
2. Removing all pollution laws from corporations in the name of "small
government".

[Terrell Miller]

Post by Craig Fink
Education is the cure for the disease, not a big stick and lot of
violence. Which brings us to another Libertarian ideal.

two points here:

1) for someone touting the benefits of education, you sure do make a lot of
grammatical and spelling errors ;)

2) education doesn't solve anything, it only glosses over the problem. Polls
repeatedly show that only a small fraction of American students and adults
can find a specific country (and, often, their own state) on a map. Our
education system has been mandating tolerance ("Intolerance will not be
permitted!") and respect for those different from the average person for
decades now. Our students keep losing ground in basic aptitude compared to
other countries' students, and the curriculum keeps getting dumbed-down.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Terrell Miller

Post by Craig Fink
Education is the cure for the disease, not a big stick and lot of
violence. Which brings us to another Libertarian ideal.

1) for someone touting the benefits of education, you sure do make a lot of
grammatical and spelling errors ;)

Welcome to teh Internet.

Post by Terrell Miller
2) education doesn't solve anything, it only glosses over the problem.

Hogwash. Some diseases like Ebola or Smallpox are just plain
nightmarish. But other diseases like AIDS... you have to *work* at to
get. If people knew better (especially in the Dirt World), there'd be
fewer cases. And if people in the Developed World knew better, the AIDS
lobby and propaganda machine woudl ahve an annual budget of about a
dollar and a half.

Polls

Post by Terrell Miller
repeatedly show that only a small fraction of American students and adults
can find a specific country (and, often, their own state) on a map. Our
education system has been mandating tolerance ("Intolerance will not be
permitted!") and respect for those different from the average person for
decades now. Our students keep losing ground in basic aptitude compared to
other countries' students, and the curriculum keeps getting dumbed-down.

This is not due to "education," but to government-controlled Education
Substitute.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Terrell Miller
2) education doesn't solve anything, it only glosses over the problem.
Polls repeatedly show that only a small fraction of American students and
adults can find a specific country (and, often, their own state) on a map.
Our education system has been mandating tolerance ("Intolerance will not
be permitted!") and respect for those different from the average person
for decades now. Our students keep losing ground in basic aptitude
compared to other countries' students, and the curriculum keeps getting
dumbed-down.

ANd that is why the locals consider me a genius. Not because I'm so much
smarter than them, but because I refused to limit myself to the paltry
twaddle called an "education" by the Public Indoctrination School System
(PISS) and actually opened some books on my own, and retained some of it. I
can spell "computer", so that makes me the local guru. Well, I can *spell*,
so here in Styksville, that makes me Einstein.

THey are amazed when I suggest that, instead of simply suing, they first
*talk to the other party* and *make a deal*. Just talking is a concept
beyond so many folks.

Remember, the lottery is very popular, and the same people who refuse to fly
because of crashes yakk on their cell phones while stuffing a Big Mac into
their mouths while driving.

[Craig Fink]

2. Isn't it fun to yak about how are public education system is failing
every election cycle. Here in Texas, we again have the opportunity to
privatize the school system with public funding. One of the candidates
want to put the control of our children's education into the hands of
their parents with school vouchers. Yet, I doubt many Texans know which
candidate for Governor wants to do it. Me, I think school reimbursement
would be better, so it could get right down to the parent writing the
teacher a check every semester. Giving the teachers a big raise by
eliminating all the highly paid peripheral leaches in the school system.
Oh well, school vouchers, a step in the right direction, instead of a
Band-aid.

If you watched the Texas Gubernatorial Debate, there wasn't nearly as much
debate as there would have been if James Warner had been included.
http://media1.dfw.swagit.com/s/chron/Houston_Chronicle/10022006-7.high.ram.html

Make your voice heard this November, vote Libertarian!
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ ***@GMail.Com
--

Post by Terrell Miller

Post by Craig Fink
Education is the cure for the disease, not a big stick and lot of
violence. Which brings us to another Libertarian ideal.

1) for someone touting the benefits of education, you sure do make a lot of
grammatical and spelling errors ;)
2) education doesn't solve anything, it only glosses over the problem. Polls
repeatedly show that only a small fraction of American students and adults
can find a specific country (and, often, their own state) on a map. Our
education system has been mandating tolerance ("Intolerance will not be
permitted!") and respect for those different from the average person for
decades now. Our students keep losing ground in basic aptitude compared to
other countries' students, and the curriculum keeps getting dumbed-down.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Craig Fink
. One of the candidates
want to put the control of our children's education into the hands of
their parents with school vouchers.

My opposition to vouchers is simple: the premise is false.

The assumption is that private schools do better. This may very well be the
case. Why do they do better? *They don't have to follow the same rules*.

Public schools pretty much have to accept anyone who shows up,
*particularly* if that student fits into some category that makes it harder
for them to learn. If a kid has emotional problems and continually disrupts
the class, he's got a disability that *must* be accommodated to the
detriment of the others in the class. Private schools can choose their
students. When you get to choose the cream of the crop, then of course the
results look better. The filtered and processed water tastes much better
than the sewage you started with.

If you want private school results from public schools, then you need to let
public schools do what private schools do, even if this means some kids get
left behind.

FUrthermore, if you suck on the public tit, you don't get to choose the
flavor of the milk. With public money (in the form of vouchers) will come
public rules. THis won't happen, much, until private schools become
dependent on public money. It's not too dissimilar from what has happened to
liberal colleges that tried to ban military recruiters- they took government
money on the condition that they allow miliary recruiters, and SCOTUS
smacked them down when they then tried to claim that banning the military
was part of the college's free speech (and thus not allowing them to ban the
military violated the school's free speech). SCOTUS said, more or less, that
they were full of shit, because if they didn't want the military on campus
(to show, for example, that they did not approve of the military's ban on
homosexuals), they didn't have to allow the military, but that they don't
get the money, either.

Vouchers sound great in the short run, but in the long run, it will turn
private schools who accept them into public ones. However, we are dealing
with government- it's far easier to create yet a new entitlement program
than to cut regulations on public schools.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Scott Hedrick" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

:
:"Craig Fink" <***@GMail.Com> wrote in message
:news:***@GMail.Com...
:> . One of the candidates
:> want to put the control of our children's education into the hands of
:> their parents with school vouchers.
:
:My opposition to vouchers is simple: the premise is false.
:
:The assumption is that private schools do better. This may very well be the
:case. Why do they do better? *They don't have to follow the same rules*.

And this *OUGHT* to tell us how to fix them. But society persistently
tries to fix them with MORE stupid changes rather than going back to
what worked in the past.

:Vouchers sound great in the short run, but in the long run, it will turn
:private schools who accept them into public ones. However, we are dealing
:with government- it's far easier to create yet a new entitlement program
:than to cut regulations on public schools.

Vouchers are the only hope that people have because the education
unions are so firmly in bed with the Democrats and refuse to go to any
system that requires holding people responsible for their choices or
that puts forward the idea that all people aren't equal in all things.

[jacob navia]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:> . One of the candidates
:> want to put the control of our children's education into the hands of
:> their parents with school vouchers.
:My opposition to vouchers is simple: the premise is false.
:The assumption is that private schools do better. This may very well be the
:case. Why do they do better? *They don't have to follow the same rules*.
And this *OUGHT* to tell us how to fix them. But society persistently
tries to fix them with MORE stupid changes rather than going back to
what worked in the past.
:Vouchers sound great in the short run, but in the long run, it will turn
:private schools who accept them into public ones. However, we are dealing
:with government- it's far easier to create yet a new entitlement program
:than to cut regulations on public schools.
Vouchers are the only hope that people have because the education
unions are so firmly in bed with the Democrats and refuse to go to any
system that requires holding people responsible for their choices or
that puts forward the idea that all people aren't equal in all things.

Yeah those terrible unions that dare ask for more money,
and treat kids as if they have ALL THE SAME RIGHTS!!!

Stupid unions isn't it?

Obviously not all kids are equal, hence they do not
have the same rights...

YOUR kids are important, and should get the best.
THE OTHER GUY's kids are just scum.

"holding people responsible for their choices" is a good idea.

I bet many people will hold some politicians responsible for their deeds
in a few weeks now :-)

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Craig Fink
lol, what, you only found two things wrong with the Libertarian Party?
Both of them wrong, you might actually be a Libertarian.
One of the core beliefs of most Libertarians is that your rights end where
my rights begin. You are at Liberty to do whatever you want as long as you
don't violate the rights of others. If you do, that is a function of
Government.

Let's have some fun with this idea- I can do whatever I like as long as
I don't hurt anyone else's rights.
Okay, here's what I want to do: I want to move out to a farm a couple
miles from the city, purchase a 105 mm howitzer, and train it on the city.
As long as I don't fire it, I haven't hurt anyone's rights, so this
should be fine.
Mind you, the city folks might be a tad concerned about knowing they are
in my gunfights 24 hours a day, but that's my right as long as I don't
actually open fire.

Post by Craig Fink
Some of the more controversial stands the Libertarian Party takes, I
Prostitution, the legalization of. Prostitutes rights are being violated
when their profession hurts no one, an exchange of this for that.

I think VD may enter this equation at some point, as well as alienating
families by encouraging straying husbands, which can't be good for the
overall society.

Post by Craig Fink
Immoral,
yes. Should anyone participate, no. Should it be tolerated, yes. Should it
be regulated/monitored, yes. Should it be taxed, yes. Should there be age
limit, yes. Should they be allowed to advertise, no. Or, is it yes, only
negative advertising.

"Negative advertising"? "Yes, you can have her...but she's really ugly,
and none-too-clean." :-)

Post by Craig Fink
Drugs, the legalization of. Same as the prostitutes, as long as they don't
violate the rights of others. Prohibition, the illegal part of "illegal
drugs" cause 80-90% of all the problems wrt drugs. The act of Prohibition
does far more harm to society than the drugs we're prohibiting.

The Netherlands tried the laissez-faire approach to drugs, and lived to
regret it.

Post by Craig Fink
Gambling, the legalization of. Same as prostitution and drugs. Wait,
hummm, many State governments are currently sponsoring this immoral act
under the guise of "Educating" Americas children. What kind of message
does that send our children?

That is also a bad idea- the government should never have gotten
involved in lotteries, despite Jefferson's conception of it being a
wonderful voluntary tax. Just a couple days ago I saw two elderly people
whose cloths indicated they were none-too-well to do happily buying
lottery tickets down at the grocery store when they should have been
buying some decent food for themselves.
Governments shouldn't try to encourage a weakness in their populace,
especially in those who age or lack of education have made easy prey for
such losing hobbies as gambling or lotteries, or those in desperate
enough financial straits that a lottery ticket takes on a almost
religious significance as a hope for the future.

Post by Craig Fink
Tobacco, the continued legalization of. Same as ... Well, this ill in our
Society comes the closest to Libertarian ideals. Tolerated, looked down
upon, rights of others beginning to be preserved, negative advertising
(not quite there yet), taxed (growing sin tax), regulated, age limits.

I'm still somewhat up in the air on that one; I do smoke, but know that
it certainly hasn't done me any good healthwise.

Post by Craig Fink
Gay Marriage, the legalization of. Marriage should really be in the
Religious realm not in the governments, and many of the laws conveying
benefits should be reviewed and or revised in the light of gay people
wanting to marry, and/or Muslims and some Christians wanting more than one
wife or husband. Toleration of the beliefs of others.

I have no problem with gay marriage at all.
I think gays should the same legal rights as anyone else, and since
marriage can confer rights that singles can't have, they also should be
given access to such rights by some form of marriage.

Post by Craig Fink
Morals, should be taught not legislated in a Society were Church and State
are separate. Immoral acts, were the person or persons are only harming
themselves should be tolerated, regulated, taxed but not encouraged.

Here's where the nub of the problem lays: "immoral acts" isn't anywhere
near as well defined as some sort of mathematical formula that the
Libertarians think it is. How about pederasty or incest? Where does they
fall? Following this concept, as long as no physical harm was done to
those involved, and they were willing to do it, then it should be
fine...but there are probably going to be some major psychological
effects from engaging in such behavior, especially for any children
involved.
On the same score, how about two people deciding to fight a duel? Again,
as long as both agree, then it would seem to be inside of their rights
to do so. But the families of any dead from such an act will probably
miss the individual involved, so has harm been done to them?
The problem with this philosophy is its damned consistency; once you
accept the basic premise of it, you need never think about any situation
again, as you will automatically know what to do about it based on the
precepts of Libertarianism. The overarching philosophy is in command,
and all shades of nuance are ignored in individual situations.
You could end up in a real mess of a situation where you know what's
going on is dead wrong, but by the precepts of Libertarianism you have
no choice but to do it, as that is the only philosophically correct
choice if one is to be consistent to its concepts.
This is fairly close to the type of thinking that led to mass slaughter
in China and the Soviet Union, so that the concept of Marxism could be
advanced to build the utopia of the promised future, no matter what the
cost in individual lives. The concept was the thing, and everything must
be subservient to it.
In the field of religion, one can see the echoes of every inquisition,
pogrom, holocaust, crusade, and jihad here; the religion in question is
the ultimate truth, and all can be forgiven in its advancement.
You must be consistent; The Great All Encompassing Idea is the thing,
and you are but its servant.

Post by Craig Fink
Education is the cure for the disease, not a big stick and lot of
violence. Which brings us to another Libertarian ideal.

Which is?
Me, I propose Lawsonomy as a alternative to Libertarianism:
http://www.lawsonsprogress.com/
Not only does it also have The Great All Encompassing Idea behind it,
but it shows that the Earth is alive and inhales at its North Pole as it
farts out of its South Pole, and its skin sweats via geysers and
volcanos: http://www.lawsonomy.org/Lawsonomy109.html
Suction.
Pressure.
Zig-Zag.
Swirl.
These are the four points of the Lawsonic compass, that shall never lead
us astray on our march into the future, no matter which of them we may
follow, or in which direction they may point.
"EQUAEVERPOISE!" shall be our watchword, as we examine the sainted
memory of The First Logician; and wait for the light of his image to be
sucked into our eyes: http://www.lawsonomy.org/Lawsonomy114.html
Money must have no intrinsic value whatsoever, and society shall slide
smoothly forward on a thick green grease of Bonus Bucks and Direct Credits.
By steadfastly following a political/economic/scientific/theological
philosophy which we know to be completely bonkers, we shall seldom be
tempted into excesses in its name.
At least that's one Alti-Man's opinion.

Pat

[Craig Fink]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
lol, what, you only found two things wrong with the Libertarian Party?
Both of them wrong, you might actually be a Libertarian.
One of the core beliefs of most Libertarians is that your rights end
where my rights begin. You are at Liberty to do whatever you want as
long as you don't violate the rights of others. If you do, that is a
function of Government.

Let's have some fun with this idea- I can do whatever I like as long as
I don't hurt anyone else's rights.
Okay, here's what I want to do: I want to move out to a farm a couple
miles from the city, purchase a 105 mm howitzer, and train it on the
city. As long as I don't fire it, I haven't hurt anyone's rights, so
this should be fine.
Mind you, the city folks might be a tad concerned about knowing they are
in my gunfights 24 hours a day, but that's my right as long as I don't
actually open fire.

You've just described assault with a deadly weapon, maybe your not a
Libertarian.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Some of the more controversial stands the Libertarian Party takes, I
Prostitution, the legalization of. Prostitutes rights are being violated
when their profession hurts no one, an exchange of this for that.

I think VD may enter this equation at some point, as well as alienating
families by encouraging straying husbands, which can't be good for the
overall society.

In the Netherlands, they have health cards for prostitutes. Which straying
husband is more likely to give his wife VD, one in the USA or one in
the Netherlands. I said nothing about encouraging prostitution just the
opposite, or do you believe that adultery doesn't exist in the good old
USA.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Immoral,
yes. Should anyone participate, no. Should it be tolerated, yes. Should
it be regulated/monitored, yes. Should it be taxed, yes. Should there be
age limit, yes. Should they be allowed to advertise, no. Or, is it yes,
only negative advertising.
Drugs, the legalization of. Same as the prostitutes, as long as they
don't violate the rights of others. Prohibition, the illegal part of
"illegal drugs" cause 80-90% of all the problems wrt drugs. The act of
Prohibition does far more harm to society than the drugs we're
prohibiting.

The Netherlands tried the laissez-faire approach to drugs, and lived to
regret it.

I believe you've been misinformed on what's going on in the Netherlands.
There was a very good conference here at Rice University in Houston that I
went to a few years back. An example; fewer people use Marijuana in the
Netherlands than the USA, but they have a slightly larger alcohol problem.
Most like due to the age limits, they can buy alcohol they can buy
marijuana.

Most of the problems that the Netherlands have wrt drugs, really has to do
with our Prohibition of them rather than the use of them by citizens of
the Netherlands. Prohibition creates drug tourist who go wild, that's
their problem. Toleration of drug use and education about them can
actually reduces drug overall usage.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Tobacco, the continued legalization of. Same as ... Well, this ill in
our Society comes the closest to Libertarian ideals. Tolerated, looked
down upon, rights of others beginning to be preserved, negative
advertising (not quite there yet), taxed (growing sin tax), regulated,
age limits.

I'm still somewhat up in the air on that one; I do smoke, but know that
it certainly hasn't done me any good healthwise.

Do you support the continued advertising of tobacco to children thru
brands, like Joe cool, Marlboro ... If society is going to tolerate
extremely addictive drugs like tobacco, elimination of positive
advertising is important so that those who are susceptible to peer
pressure (like children) don't become addictive drug users. Sure, packs
sold with the word Tobacco on them, a list of all the additives, a list of
all the known health effect and maybe the company name all in bland font.
But no colorful packaging, branding, magazine ads, or sports
sponsorship...Smoking is fowl.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Morals, should be taught not legislated in a Society were Church and
State are separate. Immoral acts, were the person or persons are only
harming themselves should be tolerated, regulated, taxed but not
encouraged.

Here's where the nub of the problem lays: "immoral acts" isn't anywhere
near as well defined as some sort of mathematical formula that the
Libertarians think it is.
How about pederasty or incest? Where does they fall?

The abuse of innocent children? Well, I guess you did have trouble with
the concept of assault with a deadly weapon.

Post by Pat Flannery
Following this concept, as long as no physical harm was done to those
involved, and they were willing to do it, then it should be fine...but
there are probably going to be some major psychological effects from
engaging in such behavior, especially for any children involved.

Well, there is hope for you yet. Psychological harm is just as bad as
physical harm, in many way it can be worst.

Post by Pat Flannery
On the same score, how about two people deciding to fight a duel? Again,
as long as both agree, then it would seem to be inside of their rights
to do so.

lol, sure why not, hopefully they'll do it before they have any children
so they can eliminate themselves from the gene pool. But I might be
willing to bend a little here by throwing the winner into prison for the
rest of his natural life, just to make sure we got rid of all the bad
genes.

Post by Pat Flannery
But the families of any dead from such an act will probably miss the
individual involved, so has harm been done to them?

Yeah, throw the winner in jail, the dead man's family probably considered
it Murder.

Post by Pat Flannery
The problem with this philosophy is its damned consistency; once you
accept the basic premise of it, you need never think about any situation
again, as you will automatically know what to do about it based on the
precepts of Libertarianism. The overarching philosophy is in command,
and all shades of nuance are ignored in individual situations. You could
end up in a real mess of a situation where you know what's going on is
dead wrong, but by the precepts of Libertarianism you have no choice but
to do it, as that is the only philosophically correct choice if one is
to be consistent to its concepts. This is fairly close to the type of
thinking that led to mass slaughter in China and the Soviet Union, so
that the concept of Marxism could be advanced to build the utopia of the
promised future, no matter what the cost in individual lives. The
concept was the thing, and everything must be subservient to it. In the
field of religion, one can see the echoes of every inquisition, pogrom,
holocaust, crusade, and jihad here; the religion in question is the
ultimate truth, and all can be forgiven in its advancement. You must be
consistent; The Great All Encompassing Idea is the thing, and you are
but its servant.

Post by Craig Fink
Which brings us to another Libertarian ideal.

Your really do know nothing about Libertarians at all, do you? Blissfully
casting your ignorant vote for Mutt or Jeff every two years or so.

Joseph Knight has reasonable description of the Libertarian ideal I was
alluding to.
http://members.aol.com/MrSage365/Liberty.html

Make your voice heard this November, vote Libertarian!

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Craig Fink
In the Netherlands, they have health cards for prostitutes.

Besides, if a married guy bangs a whore, *the whore* is not harming the wife
or the marriage. The wife needs to take it out on her shit of a husband. Our
society has a real problem with personal responsibility.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Craig Fink

Post by Pat Flannery
Let's have some fun with this idea- I can do whatever I like as long as
I don't hurt anyone else's rights.
Okay, here's what I want to do: I want to move out to a farm a couple
miles from the city, purchase a 105 mm howitzer, and train it on the
city. As long as I don't fire it, I haven't hurt anyone's rights, so
this should be fine.
Mind you, the city folks might be a tad concerned about knowing they are
in my gunfights 24 hours a day, but that's my right as long as I don't
actually open fire.

You've just described assault with a deadly weapon, maybe your not a
Libertarian.

But I'm not firing it, nor am I threatening _to fire it_ at the city
unless they do something I desire...say giving me Prima Nocta with all
the city's new brides.
It just sits there like a lawn ornament, but this one can be fired if
desired.
But I'm not threatening to fire it.
I can own a hammer and that won't do any harm to anyone as long as I
don't take a swing at them with it...the howitzer's the same thing, as
long as it don't use it to an evil end, why should anyone say I can't
have it? It may fall under the second amendment, as our city's
well-regulated militia may need some artillery support someday, and I'd
have just the thing for them to use in a pinch. Okay; maybe it's a
little bigger than a deer rifle, but it's not like I have a Atomic
Cannon or anything.

Post by Craig Fink

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Some of the more controversial stands the Libertarian Party takes, I
Prostitution, the legalization of. Prostitutes rights are being violated
when their profession hurts no one, an exchange of this for that.

I think VD may enter this equation at some point, as well as alienating
families by encouraging straying husbands, which can't be good for the
overall society.

In the Netherlands, they have health cards for prostitutes. Which straying
husband is more likely to give his wife VD, one in the USA or one in
the Netherlands.

Ideally, they wouldn't be straying; if they are constantly straying then
it might be time to consider divorce rather than prostitutes.

Post by Craig Fink
I said nothing about encouraging prostitution just the
opposite, or do you believe that adultery doesn't exist in the good old
USA.

I've even heard rumors of it in the highest offices in the land...but
generally with interns, not actual professional prostitutes.
For that one must go to England, as they know how to do it right:
Loading Image...

Post by Craig Fink

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Immoral,
yes. Should anyone participate, no. Should it be tolerated, yes. Should
it be regulated/monitored, yes. Should it be taxed, yes. Should there be
age limit, yes. Should they be allowed to advertise, no. Or, is it yes,
only negative advertising.
Drugs, the legalization of. Same as the prostitutes, as long as they
don't violate the rights of others. Prohibition, the illegal part of
"illegal drugs" cause 80-90% of all the problems wrt drugs. The act of
Prohibition does far more harm to society than the drugs we're
prohibiting.

The Netherlands tried the laissez-faire approach to drugs, and lived to
regret it.

I believe you've been misinformed on what's going on in the Netherlands.
There was a very good conference here at Rice University in Houston that I
went to a few years back. An example; fewer people use Marijuana in the
Netherlands than the USA, but they have a slightly larger alcohol problem.
Most like due to the age limits, they can buy alcohol they can buy
marijuana.
Most of the problems that the Netherlands have wrt drugs, really has to do
with our Prohibition of them rather than the use of them by citizens of
the Netherlands. Prohibition creates drug tourist who go wild, that's
their problem. Toleration of drug use and education about them can
actually reduces drug overall usage.

And as long as we're on that, what about other drugs used in the
Netherlands?
Why has the Netherlands become one of the main bases for the
international drug trade in such goodies as heroin, LSD, cocaine, and
ecstasy?
If decriminalizing some of them decreases their use, the decriminalizing
all of them should just about wipe their use out. Mind you it's going to
be an interesting interim period from the viewpoint of public safety
till this occurs, as drivers try to take their cars for flights out over
the Zuider Zee like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
I'm sure the international drug trade wouldn't take such a
decriminalization as the golden opportunity to make the Netherlands the
top-of-the-line headquarters for their business.
Ah, but you say: "we'll only decriminalize the soft drugs, not the hard
stuff."
So much for the pure Libertarian approach- as long as people are only
doing harm to themselves, then all drugs must be made legal...this was
that philosophical bind I was warning you about, that will get you doing
the wrong thing to be consistent with your ideology.

Post by Craig Fink

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Tobacco, the continued legalization of. Same as ... Well, this ill in
our Society comes the closest to Libertarian ideals. Tolerated, looked
down upon, rights of others beginning to be preserved, negative
advertising (not quite there yet), taxed (growing sin tax), regulated,
age limits.

I'm still somewhat up in the air on that one; I do smoke, but know that
it certainly hasn't done me any good healthwise.

Do you support the continued advertising of tobacco to children thru
brands, like Joe cool,

They haven't used Joe Kool in years from what I've seen.

Post by Craig Fink
Marlboro ... If society is going to tolerate
extremely addictive drugs like tobacco, elimination of positive
advertising is important so that those who are susceptible to peer
pressure (like children) don't become addictive drug users.

The last time I smoked was on Saturday night, and I'm probably not going
to smoke again till the weekend.
For being "highly addictive" it's not doing that hot of a job, is it?
Now being a diabetic, let me tell you about something that is highly
addictive- sugar.
For months after I had to cut that out of my diet, I'd go walking past
the ice cream and candy, and it would feel like a magnetic field was
pulling me that way; I'm getting over this, but there's still a decided
attraction to sweets, which I note we reward kids with for good behavior.
Maybe we should play it safe and give them a cigar instead- at least
they won't get fat off those.

Post by Craig Fink
Sure, packs
sold with the word Tobacco on them, a list of all the additives, a list of
all the known health effect and maybe the company name all in bland font.
But no colorful packaging, branding, magazine ads, or sports
sponsorship...Smoking is fowl.

Smoking's for chickens? Or are smokers real turkeys?
Sorry, that was too easy- don't give me a set-up line like that. ;-)
Chewing tobacco, now _that's_ foul.
At least the smoker is polite enough to keep all the nasty brown stuff
down in their lungs where people don't have to see it.

Post by Craig Fink

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Morals, should be taught not legislated in a Society were Church and
State are separate. Immoral acts, were the person or persons are only
harming themselves should be tolerated, regulated, taxed but not
encouraged.

Here's where the nub of the problem lays: "immoral acts" isn't anywhere
near as well defined as some sort of mathematical formula that the
Libertarians think it is.
How about pederasty or incest? Where does they fall?

The abuse of innocent children? Well, I guess you did have trouble with
the concept of assault with a deadly weapon.

I have never desired to have sex with a piece of field
artillery...despite that fact, the gunpowder loading accident on my
homemade siege howitzer did leave me pretty fucked, but at least gave
the hospital something fun to talk about, and Dr. Fitchet a chance to
re-use some of his medical skills he learned in Vietnam.
Look ma! No bleeding! Instant cauterization of the wound in the 2,350
degree centigrade fireball.
Instant vaporization of the polyester pants in the same fireball.
Man reeking of burnt hair in emergency room, metal zipper over clean
white briefs and area protected by belt all that remains of the front of
his pants, back of his pant legs hanging down like a pair of tuxedo tails.
Right thumb gets fully reattached to hand.
Common sense gets fully reattached to brain.
Siege mortar destroyed after release from hospital; naval gun sold as
lawn ornament.
But it was also damage that I did only to myself, so that makes it
perfectly all right under sound Libertarian principles.

Post by Craig Fink

Post by Pat Flannery
Following this concept, as long as no physical harm was done to those
involved, and they were willing to do it, then it should be fine...but
there are probably going to be some major psychological effects from
engaging in such behavior, especially for any children involved.

Well, there is hope for you yet. Psychological harm is just as bad as
physical harm, in many way it can be worst.

(evading sausage pun)
Yeah, but if they both agree to the act, who are you to stop them? That
would be a matter of infringing upon their rights, and that's a no-no,
remember?

Post by Craig Fink
Yeah, throw the winner in jail, the dead man's family probably considered
it Murder.

Yeah, but if we had a law against duels, then we might end up with two
people alive, plus we get to save the cost of incarcerating someone for
life.
By strict Libertarian ideals duels should be perfectly acceptable, as no
one's rights get infringed.
In fact, by telling them they can't duel, you'd be infringing their rights.
This is a sword that cuts both ways.

Post by Craig Fink
Joseph Knight has reasonable description of the Libertarian ideal I was
alluding to.
http://members.aol.com/MrSage365/Liberty.html

You know, that actually reads like Lawson's work.
Broad, sweeping, and surprisingly short statements that have no
discussion of where they originate from, but rather are just there, like
mushrooms on the lawn after a rainy night.
AND BIG LETTERS.
One can never have too many BIG LETTERS.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
And said with such assurance!
Why this man has found the very key to getting a following.
Self assurance.
Before others will consider you as great, you must first consider
yourself as great, with the firm conviction of a demigod about your status.
All the great thinkers had that self assurance.
Caligula, Nero, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Simberg....
SELF ASSURANCE WRIT LARGE IN BIG LETTERS!

Pat

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Pat Flannery
But I'm not firing it, nor am I threatening _to fire it_ at the city
unless they do something I desire...say giving me Prima Nocta with all the
city's new brides.

This is the 21st Century- see what happens when you explain what "Prima
Nocta" means...half of them will fall down laughing at you, and the other
half (the ones nobody but their desperate husbands wanted to touch) will
beat the crap out of you.

[p***@prep.synonet.com]

Post by Pat Flannery
And as long as we're on that, what about other drugs used in the
Netherlands?
Why has the Netherlands become one of the main bases for the
international drug trade in such goodies as heroin, LSD, cocaine, and
ecstasy?

Because Rotterdam has been the biggest port in EU since the war, overtaking
Antwerpen, and Amsterdam has been a huge seaport since forever.

Post by Pat Flannery
If decriminalizing some of them decreases their use, the
decriminalizing all of them should just about wipe their use
out. Mind you it's going to be an interesting interim period from
the viewpoint of public safety till this occurs, as drivers try to
take their cars for flights out over the Zuider Zee like Chitty
Chitty Bang Bang. I'm sure the international drug trade wouldn't
take such a decriminalization as the golden opportunity to make the
Netherlands the top-of-the-line headquarters for their business.
Ah, but you say: "we'll only decriminalize the soft drugs, not the
hard stuff." So much for the pure Libertarian approach- as long as
people are only doing harm to themselves, then all drugs must be
made legal...this was that philosophical bind I was warning you
about, that will get you doing the wrong thing to be consistent with
your ideology.

The Amsterdam drug tollerance policy, it is not a full
de-criminisation I beleive, was put in place by a new Police
Commisioner who made it a condition of his taking the job. He did so
so as to have a chance of keeping the coruption in the force from
going way over the top.

Read `E is for Ecstasy' for the comments of the Mancester Chief
Constable on MDMA. BTW, in England Heroin adicts could get H on
perscription. Not sure if that is still the case.

[Craig Fink]

Yes, corruption another symptom of a sick society hooked on Prohibition.
When the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed, the Prohibition
Party had attained it's narrow goal and went away. When the 21st Amendment
to the US constitution was passed, the Prohibition Party was reborn. Then
it dwindled away as our Federal Government continued moving away from a
Constitutional form of government. Amendments to the Constitution were no
longer necessary to add to the list of Federal powers. It's not that the
Prohibition Party gave up on their goals, they were just implemented in
unconstitutional law instead. BTW, the 18th Amendment says nothing about
Alcohol, it does have something to say about "intoxicating liquors", which
would include Coke a Cola's first recipe. Interesting how our fine State
run educational system has narrowed the scope of the 18th amendment to
just one "intoxicating liquor", when the interpretation after it passed was
probably much broader.

In society, there will always be children. Every child embarks on his own
adventure we call life, learning and maturing into an adult. There are
many pitfalls along the way due to many different reasons. When a child,
or adolescent has problems along the way, quite often they end up using
drugs to treat their own symptoms. If it's more that just a little bit of
experimentation or rebellion and they continue using drug, the drug use is
just a symptom of other problems that they need to address. Drugs aren't
the root of their problems, but rather a symptom.

Until they is ready to address whatever is causing the root problem, you
can expect continued drug use, transitioning into drug abuse, and at some
point they'll crash and burn. At that low point, they are ready to make
the changes in their life to address their drug problem, and more
importantly the root cause of it. Intentionally making their problems
worst with Prohibition, IMO, only lengthens the process because it focuses
on what is essentially a scape goat, the drugs, instead of their real
problem.

Since there will always be children that must mature into adults,
there will always be problems along the way. A never ending problem called
childhood, that will never go away, no matter how hard we try.

To me this is the moderate view to a never ending problem. Prohibition,
and all the problems it causes in society is the radical view. Corruption,
theft, violence, gangs, easy money, easy access by children, unregulated,
no controls, overflowing prisons, crime schools are all never ending
problems with Prohibition. A radical solution to personal problems.

Make your voice heard this November, vote Libertarian!
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ ***@GMail.Com
--

Post by p***@prep.synonet.com

Post by Pat Flannery
And as long as we're on that, what about other drugs used in the
Netherlands?
Why has the Netherlands become one of the main bases for the
international drug trade in such goodies as heroin, LSD, cocaine, and
ecstasy?

Because Rotterdam has been the biggest port in EU since the war, overtaking
Antwerpen, and Amsterdam has been a huge seaport since forever.

Post by Pat Flannery
If decriminalizing some of them decreases their use, the
decriminalizing all of them should just about wipe their use
out. Mind you it's going to be an interesting interim period from
the viewpoint of public safety till this occurs, as drivers try to
take their cars for flights out over the Zuider Zee like Chitty
Chitty Bang Bang. I'm sure the international drug trade wouldn't
take such a decriminalization as the golden opportunity to make the
Netherlands the top-of-the-line headquarters for their business.
Ah, but you say: "we'll only decriminalize the soft drugs, not the
hard stuff." So much for the pure Libertarian approach- as long as
people are only doing harm to themselves, then all drugs must be
made legal...this was that philosophical bind I was warning you
about, that will get you doing the wrong thing to be consistent with
your ideology.

The Amsterdam drug tollerance policy, it is not a full
de-criminisation I beleive, was put in place by a new Police
Commisioner who made it a condition of his taking the job. He did so
so as to have a chance of keeping the coruption in the force from
going way over the top.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
lol, what, you only found two things wrong with the Libertarian Party?
Both of them wrong, you might actually be a Libertarian.
One of the core beliefs of most Libertarians is that your rights end where
my rights begin. You are at Liberty to do whatever you want as long as you
don't violate the rights of others. If you do, that is a function of
Government.

Let's have some fun with this idea- I can do whatever I like as long as
I don't hurt anyone else's rights.
Okay, here's what I want to do: I want to move out to a farm a couple
miles from the city, purchase a 105 mm howitzer, and train it on the city.
As long as I don't fire it, I haven't hurt anyone's rights, so this
should be fine.

Correct. Just as it should be fine for private citizens or companies to
own what are effectively ballistic missiles (Space Ship 2 and the like)
and ruise missiles (airplanes). Any of these can be aimed at someone
else's turf in a matter of seconds or less.

Post by Pat Flannery
Mind you, the city folks might be a tad concerned about knowing they are
in my gunfights 24 hours a day

Imagine their concern when a 767 flies overhead.

Post by Pat Flannery
Just a couple days ago I saw two elderly people
whose cloths indicated they were none-too-well to do happily buying
lottery tickets down at the grocery store when they should have been
buying some decent food for themselves.

The stupid self-destruct. Such is life.

Post by Pat Flannery
I'm still somewhat up in the air on that one; I do smoke, but know that
it certainly hasn't done me any good healthwise.

The stupid self-destruct. Such is life.

Post by Pat Flannery
On the same score, how about two people deciding to fight a duel? Again,
as long as both agree, then it would seem to be inside of their rights
to do so. But the families of any dead from such an act will probably
miss the individual involved, so has harm been done to them?

No worse than someone who decides to join the military, police, firee
department, etc. and dies in the process. Or someone who snaps his neck
racing motorbikes.

Post by Pat Flannery
You could end up in a real mess of a situation where you know what's
going on is dead wrong, but by the precepts of Libertarianism you have
no choice but to do it, as that is the only philosophically correct
choice if one is to be consistent to its concepts.

Give an example.

Post by Pat Flannery
This is fairly close to the type of thinking that led to mass slaughter
in China and the Soviet Union, so that the concept of Marxism could be
advanced to build the utopia of the promised future, no matter what the
cost in individual lives.

You're not thinking of Libertarianism ("My rights stop at your nose"),
but of the Democrats ("My rights start where the State tells me they
do.")

[Craig Fink]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
lol, what, you only found two things wrong with the Libertarian Party?
Both of them wrong, you might actually be a Libertarian.
One of the core beliefs of most Libertarians is that your rights end
where my rights begin. You are at Liberty to do whatever you want as
long as you don't violate the rights of others. If you do, that is a
function of Government.

Let's have some fun with this idea- I can do whatever I like as long as
I don't hurt anyone else's rights.
Okay, here's what I want to do: I want to move out to a farm a couple
miles from the city, purchase a 105 mm howitzer, and train it on the
city. As long as I don't fire it, I haven't hurt anyone's rights, so
this should be fine.

Correct. Just as it should be fine for private citizens or companies to
own what are effectively ballistic missiles (Space Ship 2 and the like)
and ruise missiles (airplanes). Any of these can be aimed at someone
else's turf in a matter of seconds or less.

Post by Pat Flannery
Mind you, the city folks might be a tad concerned about knowing they
are in my gunfights 24 hours a day

Imagine their concern when a 767 flies overhead.

When I read what Pat wrote, I read the word as gunsights not gunfights.
Noticed it after writing my response.

Operating commercial vehicles safely is always important.

[Craig Fink]

Post by Craig Fink
When I read what Pat wrote, I read the word as gunsights not gunfights.
Noticed it after writing my response.

What I ment to say was, red, not reed (read). I learned to reed
phonetically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetics

Post by Craig Fink
Operating commercial vehicles safely is always important.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Craig Fink
What I ment to say was, red, not reed (read). I learned to reed
phonetically.

Shouldn't that be "fahnetiklee"?

What does "C" do that isn't already handled by "S" or "K"? If we used "S"
for the soft C and "K" for the hard C, then C alone could be used for "ch"
(as in "church").

Then, of course, we run into "school", which should be "skool".

[Jonathan Silverlight]

Post by Scott Hedrick

Post by Craig Fink
What I ment to say was, red, not reed (read). I learned to reed
phonetically.

Shouldn't that be "fahnetiklee"?
What does "C" do that isn't already handled by "S" or "K"? If we used "S"
for the soft C and "K" for the hard C, then C alone could be used for "ch"
(as in "church").
Then, of course, we run into "school", which should be "skool".

I've just discovered that "Meihem In Ce Klasrum" was published 60 years
ago!

[Craig Fink]

Satire,
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j31/satires.php

The history of English is interesting
http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/leaflets/whyenglish.pdf
1476 ... early London printers ... usually paid by the line and often
inserted additional letters into words to earn more money.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ ***@GMail.Com
--

Post by Jonathan Silverlight

Post by Scott Hedrick

Post by Craig Fink
What I ment to say was, red, not reed (read). I learned to reed
phonetically.

Shouldn't that be "fahnetiklee"?
What does "C" do that isn't already handled by "S" or "K"? If we used "S"
for the soft C and "K" for the hard C, then C alone could be used for "ch"
(as in "church").
Then, of course, we run into "school", which should be "skool".

I've just discovered that "Meihem In Ce Klasrum" was published 60 years
ago!

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Craig Fink
What I ment to say was, red, not reed (read). I learned to reed
phonetically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetics

It's a pity english doesn't work like that.
But it's still easier to spell and pronounce than French.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Craig Fink
When I read what Pat wrote, I read the word as gunsights not gunfights.
Noticed it after writing my response.
Operating commercial vehicles safely is always important.

This is called Spellcheck in action; most of the times it helps, but
sometimes it's a capable of generating some very amusing errors.
I still want to know more about those "ruise missiles"; I think North
Korea shot one of those at us on the 4th of July. :-)

Pat

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
The stupid self-destruct. Such is life.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Particularly if they are telegenic, they
are supported and enabled, if not encouraged, to breed.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
Correct. Just as it should be fine for private citizens or companies to
own what are effectively ballistic missiles (Space Ship 2 and the like)
and ruise missiles (airplanes). Any of these can be aimed at someone
else's turf in a matter of seconds or less.

But if they are ruise missiles, they wouldn't really have them, would they?

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
Mind you, the city folks might be a tad concerned about knowing they are
in my gunfights 24 hours a day

That was supposed to be "gun sights" BTW.
This is Karma for the ruise missile remark.

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
Just a couple days ago I saw two elderly people
whose cloths indicated they were none-too-well to do happily buying
lottery tickets down at the grocery store when they should have been
buying some decent food for themselves.

The stupid self-destruct. Such is life.

You make Darwin's "nature red in tooth and claw" look benign, don't you?
Since Europe is stupid, why should we care if they self-desruct?

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
I'm still somewhat up in the air on that one; I do smoke, but know that
it certainly hasn't done me any good healthwise.

The stupid self-destruct. Such is life.

Try something new...say "No proof cited? Claim fails"
I could have sworn I've heard that one somewhere before.

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
On the same score, how about two people deciding to fight a duel? Again,
as long as both agree, then it would seem to be inside of their rights
to do so. But the families of any dead from such an act will probably
miss the individual involved, so has harm been done to them?

No worse than someone who decides to join the military, police, firee
department, etc.
and dies in the process. Or someone who snaps his neck
racing motorbikes.

Post by Pat Flannery
You could end up in a real mess of a situation where you know what's
going on is dead wrong, but by the precepts of Libertarianism you have
no choice but to do it, as that is the only philosophically correct
choice if one is to be consistent to its concepts.

Give an example.

See my other posting I just sent.
Say a parent and their four year old kid want to have sex.
In fact, the whole family wants to engage in one giant orgy.
Whose business is it of yours to stop them, provided that they all
consented?
In fact, if you try to stop them, you are violating their rights under
this concept.
Or the duel...lets kick that up a notch also...we'll get some Civil War
re-creators and add a whole new level to it.
We'll use live ammo.
Who knows? Pickett's Charge might actually work this time.
Presuming that all agree to it, and they waive any right to medical care
in the aftermath, but are simply put out of their misery like the good
troopers they are, then where's the harm in that?
That's the slippery slope that this all ends up at the bottom of.
That's where the concept of absolute individual rights over collective
societal rights instinctively wants to go.
This all sounds goofy and unlikely, but if this ever caught on, it would
be a very interesting place to live in.
Somebody goes off their rocker and takes a gun to the family, it's one
thing; somebody goes off their rocker and takes a 90 mm recoilless rifle
to a shopping mall, and it's quite another.
It doesn't sound like a fun or pleasant place to live, and one hell of a
one to try to bring up kids in.

Pat

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
This is fairly close to the type of thinking that led to mass slaughter
in China and the Soviet Union, so that the concept of Marxism could be
advanced to build the utopia of the promised future, no matter what the
cost in individual lives.

You're not thinking of Libertarianism ("My rights stop at your nose"),
but of the Democrats ("My rights start where the State tells me they
do.")

No, I'm thinking of the One Big Idea that's going to make everything
perfect in its aftermath.
The One Big Idea that is always wonderful in its very conception,
doesn't seem to have been embraced by any other society in the past
despite the obvious virtues of it, and whose adherents don't just
support it, they support it rabidly, and to the exclusion of all other
concepts
The idea that's always extreme, always will put everything to rights
immediately, and amazingly enough always allows "us" to vent our hate
for "them", so that they can see we are their betters, as we already
knew we were.
This isn't a political philosophy, it's a cult.
And it doesn't even account for the vital place that Zig-Zag and Swirl
play in day-to-day life. ;-)

Pat

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com
The stupid self-destruct. Such is life.

You make Darwin's "nature red in tooth and claw" look benign, don't you?
Since Europe is stupid, why should we care if they self-desruct?

1) Some sentimental attachment to "the old country" for many Americans.
2) The EUrabians have nukes, and lots of 'em.
3) When Europe falls, that will empower the Jihadists even more to make
trouble *here.*

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
You could end up in a real mess of a situation where you know what's
going on is dead wrong, but by the precepts of Libertarianism you have
no choice but to do it, as that is the only philosophically correct
choice if one is to be consistent to its concepts.

Give an example.

See my other posting I just sent.
Say a parent and their four year old kid want to have sex.

Your premise is flawed from the beginning. Libertarianism does not
presuppose that children are capable of making such decisions, and thus
are to be legally protected. If a parent and their *forty* year old
child want to have sex... it's sick and weird, but it's also nobodies
legal business but theirs.

Post by Pat Flannery
Or the duel...lets kick that up a notch also...we'll get some Civil War
re-creators and add a whole new level to it.
We'll use live ammo.
Who knows? Pickett's Charge might actually work this time.
Presuming that all agree to it, and they waive any right to medical care
in the aftermath, but are simply put out of their misery like the good
troopers they are, then where's the harm in that?

So long as they assure that their bullets don't go off the agreed-upon
territory onto someone else's turf, why not? The stupid self-destruct.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by ***@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com

Post by Pat Flannery
This is fairly close to the type of thinking that led to mass slaughter
in China and the Soviet Union, so that the concept of Marxism could be
advanced to build the utopia of the promised future, no matter what the
cost in individual lives.

You're not thinking of Libertarianism ("My rights stop at your nose"),
but of the Democrats ("My rights start where the State tells me they
do.")

No, I'm thinking of the One Big Idea that's going to make everything
perfect in its aftermath.

Nobody suggests that Libertarianism is going to make "everything
perfect."

Strawman arguements help your case no more than they help a
Creationists.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Pat Flannery
But if they are ruise missiles, they wouldn't really have them, would they?

Just replace the missiles with Quaker cannons.

[Fred J. McCall]

Pat Flannery <***@daktel.com> wrote:

:
:
:Craig Fink wrote:
:>
:>Prostitution, the legalization of. Prostitutes rights are being violated
:>when their profession hurts no one, an exchange of this for that.
:
:I think VD may enter this equation at some point, ...

It certainly does, but not where your position would like it to.
Legalizing prostitution LOWERS rates of VD (because if you legalize
prostitution it can be regulated and the workers can be regularly
tested).

:... as well as alienating
:families by encouraging straying husbands, which can't be good for the
:overall society.

You can't "encourage" husbands (or wives) to stray. Legalizing
prostitution certainly doesn't do so.

[Fred J. McCall]

Pat Flannery <***@daktel.com> wrote:

:
:Craig Fink wrote:
:>
:>lol, what, you only found two things wrong with the Libertarian Party?
:>Both of them wrong, you might actually be a Libertarian.
:>
:>One of the core beliefs of most Libertarians is that your rights end where
:>my rights begin. You are at Liberty to do whatever you want as long as you
:>don't violate the rights of others. If you do, that is a function of
:>Government.
:>
:
:Let's have some fun with this idea- I can do whatever I like as long as
:I don't hurt anyone else's rights.
:Okay, here's what I want to do: I want to move out to a farm a couple
:miles from the city, purchase a 105 mm howitzer, and train it on the city.
:As long as I don't fire it, I haven't hurt anyone's rights, so this
:should be fine.

Nope. Once you aim it, you are now threatening. That violates other
peoples' rights the same way waving a firearm around would.

[Rand Simberg]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:51:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Craig Fink
Make your voice heard this November, vote Libertarian!

I can remember when I first heard of the Libertarians, and they even
wanted a friend of mine to run for state office on their ticket.
But in short order I found out that their concept of free markets/small
1. Getting rid of pretty much all of worker's rights, including health
care, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage in he name of "free
markets".

Those aren't workers' "rights."

Post by Pat Flannery
2. Removing all pollution laws from corporations in the name of "small
government".

Usually it's more nuanced than that. It's usually removing bad
pollution laws in favor of more effective means of minimizing
externalities (e.g., emission credits), and it's done in the name of
economic efficiency, not "small government."

Post by Pat Flannery
I don't know whether big business invented the Libertarian party, or
just bought it outright early on;

Neither.

Post by Pat Flannery
but the concept of using political
intellectuals as "useful fools" isn't something completely limited to
Leninism.

Big business doesn't like free markets, actually. It prefers to bribe
governments to give it preferred treatment.

And I guess you won't have to worry about being used as a "useful
fool," since you're hardly an intellectual of any kind. You do seem
profoundly ignorant about libertarianism and free markets, though.