Guard Dog

Modern: Microsoft Historically: Carnegie Steel and they did what that was bad for consumers? MS got slapped down for actually breaking the law, btw, and like it or not, they offer the best product in the world (and they never had a monopoly anyway), and carnegie actually offered low prices on steel. that was why they got so big in the first place... the world was buying. kudos to the mention of AT&T. that would have been easy to pounce on. taks IIRC Carnagie Steel ran afoul of the government because it owned the iron mines, the train transports, the steel mills, and the ships for export. When you control a product from raw material to finished product that is a monopoly by the definition. @Tale, if you can draw that conclusion from ANYTHING I've ever posted here, you need to do some re-reading because you are way off. I am very mistrustful of the federal government because since the days of FDR is has grown by leaps and bounds and has usurped far more authority and power than the constitution allows. And apparently no one has been inclined to stop it, and only a few have even managed to slow it. And if you are still ticked at me, well jeez, I already apologized. You were right, i was wrong. What, do you want me to write you a check or something?

And denials for treatment high. How do you figure? Without the interference of either a government or insurance entity.

This thread is over! No one is going to top that analysis. Too funny, and well put.

Well don't let that stop!

Modern: Microsoft Historically: Carnegie Steel Tale and Sand, you both have an unreasonable fear of coporations and an unreasonable trust in the fidelity and abilities of the government. First of all, no one is calling for the repeal of the Sherman Act (the US anti-trust law) and both the companies you name have been called down under that statute. Big companies seem to draw a lot of ire as being a "big greedy evil profit mongering" monsters. I've never understood this irrational fear or loathing of corporations many of you exhibit. A comapny cannot take anything away from you that you do not give up freely. They cannot confiscate your house and property, they cannot seize your assets, and they cannot throw in in prison. The government can though. If you sue a company and your complaint is justified you will have a good expectation of success. If you need to go to court against the government the deck is so stacked against you that justice and fact are often not enough to prevail. And you have an unreasonable fear of actually paying attention to what people are saying. You say "unfettered capitalism is an anathema to most of you. But it really does work well, and the only time it does not is when government gets involved. " You then go on to praise competition. All I did was tell you that "unfettered capitalism" does not always mean competition. You go on to say that "no one is calling for the repeal of the Sherman Act." Here's a tidbit for you. The presence of the Sherman Act alone prevents unfettered capitalism. The sole thing I'm speaking against. I'm not speaking against big corporations. Not claiming extensive corporate greed. I'm speaking exclusively against the type of capitalism that you now say you're not asking for. Yet you praise in your other posts. I'm kind of curious as to how I can make two short posts that both speak against monopolies and you suddenly think I've gone wholely socialist. People in power who have the same mindset you do. "If anyone disagrees with me even a little, they must be on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from me." Fair enough. My comments were more directed at Sand than you anyway so I should have replied to his post. He and I debate that same line of thinking in a few other threads around here as well. Sorry to drag you into it.

Modern: Microsoft Historically: Carnegie Steel Tale and Sand, you both have an unreasonable fear of coporations and an unreasonable trust in the fidelity and abilities of the government. First of all, no one is calling for the repeal of the Sherman Act (the US anti-trust law) and both the companies you name have been called down under that statute. Big companies seem to draw a lot of ire as being a "big greedy evil profit mongering" monsters. I've never understood this irrational fear or loathing of corporations many of you exhibit. A comapny cannot take anything away from you that you do not give up freely. They cannot confiscate your house and property, they cannot seize your assets, and they cannot throw in in prison. The government can though. If you sue a company and your complaint is justified you will have a good expectation of success. If you need to go to court against the government the deck is so stacked against you that justice and fact are often not enough to prevail. So who should you really be afraid of here?

How do you figure? Not trying to spark a debate, I'm genuinely curious. In the US, more so than other countries, because of the make up of our government, all things political are cyclical.

WTF??? If that was a joke I don't get it. If it was a statement you do not know Taks or do not understand the definition of your pejoratives.

Wrong. Didn't you read my example? Competition for business keeps prices low.

I lean more towards fascism. Yeah but you are crazier than the rest of them.

Unless the subject has no shame.

No want for fools here Volo.

I stated before I know little and less about the health care business. But I do know quite a bit about the veterinary business. That is entirely consumer driven. There is only a little government oversight and then only at a state level. And with no insurance interference to speak of the cost is paid by the consumer. So it is bad for business for a vet to make insane mark ups on their goods and services because customers will simply take their business elsewhere. Case in point. A vet we use in a dog rescue organization I volunteer with charges patients $75 for an x-ray. I happen to know the film costs about $50 per exposure, then add in a reasonable $5-$10 for equipment wear and tear, then a $10-$15 mark up and there is your price. The Vet down the street charges about the same. Why? Because he does not want his patients going down the street for the same services for less. And they would. Basic simple economics and it is thriving, unfettered by insurance, government bureaucracy, etc. The US health care system once operated EXACTLY like this. I had an x-ray done in an emergency room two years ago. It was $450 that my insurance covered. What the hell is wrong here. Same film, practically the same machine (I think my Vets was newer) but the Vet knows they cannot go hog wild and abuse their client the way the hospital did my insurance company. I used this example last time we discussed this but it is true. One of my dogs developed a hernia. I took her to the vet got an x-ray and diagnosis in the first visit. They scheduled surgery two days later. The whole bill was a little more than $800 all told and she came through beautifully. And you can bet if the Vet down the street would have done it it for $600 I would have gone there. If that were me I'd have to see my regular doctor, after a 6 week wait for an appointment. He would take an x-ray and refer me to a specialist. After another six weeks I'd see the specialist and he would take another x-ray. Then they would schedule surgery which would take a few more weeks. By then I would not even need it. If the US health care system were allowed to operate more like veterinary medicine I think 80% of the problems would be solved. I realize than many of you lean towards socialism on this board, and unfettered capitalism is an anathema to most of you. But it really does work well, and the only time it does not is when government gets involved.

Of course it all free. The doctors work for free, the hospital electricity is free, the medications, supplies, nurses all free free free! Listen Slug, none of it is free. It is all paid for in taxes. To bring that kind of system to the US would mean staggaring new taxes. And Americans will-not-suffer-it. Believe me, the quickest way to end your political career here is to propose and push a massive tax increase. Just ask Jimmy Carter, George H Bush, the congressional democrats of 1994, Florida Lt-Governor Buddy (state income tax) McKay, and others I could name. I agree with Enoch (for a change) the problem is the insurance companies. But the government is NOT the answer I think.

Good answer!

Where the heck are you from Gorgon? I just realized I did not know.

To be honest I know very little about this subject. But I do have two points to make. In 1995 Hillary Clinton was put in charge of a team of bean counters, career bureaucrats, lawyers, and political neophytes (not a single doctor or health care professional) and they worked for a year in secret to come up with a revamp plan for the US health care system. Their solution was for the government to seize control of 1/7 to the US economy and take it over like the Soviets rolling into Prague. The American people loved the idea so much we threw the democrats out of office in 1994. I realize the health care system is not perfect but having the government take it over is just not the answer. Have any of you ever been to a VA hospital and compared it to a pay-as-you-go private hospital? Trust me, you do not want this.

Heh, and you wonder why Americans like me (and so many others you might be surprised) argue for a return to the Monroe Doctrine, the awarding of MFN status to only Western Hemisphere nations, and elimination of ALL foreign aid to any nation west of Hawaii and east of Brazil. If the rest of the world is so infatuated with China, they can go to them next time humanitarian aid is needed. Seriously though, to read the posts on this board, I am often surprised at how much hatred and vitriol is directed at the US. And how little is directed at China, Iran, North Korea, and others who are actively working to either expand their influence at other people's expense or are outright prepping for a war. China emits more greenhouse gas than the US, has a far, far worse record on human rights, actively censors and suppresses it's people, and practices an extremely ruthless form of business "imperialism" in international affairs. As this article points out. China makes no effort to mitigate environmental damage in ANY industrial endeavors, does not know the meaning of the term "Quality Control" and severely restricts the personal freedoms and information available to it's citizens. In short, liberals (like those here) should hate China with a passion because it is the antithesis of everything they stand for. But as you pointed out Wals, they do not. Why?

Actually I should clarify. All of my comments were about the US governemnt rather than government in general. There is a great gap between what Sand (and many others) think the US Government should do and is permitted to do.

And those who can't help themselves due to illness or disability? They should just die and rot, right? You know... forget it. Arguing with you is like swimming in tar. The more you struggle the deeper you get. BTW, taking an example to an unreasonable extreme is not the way to make a point. Plus I just cant get past you thinking it the governments job to "take care of everyone". As if there was not other way.

"Salus Populi Suprema Lex" huh? I disagree. But that is an old arguement neither of us will win. I think Mao said that too. The governments job is not to serve the people but to provide the enviorment for the people to help themselves. But whatever, that is why you vote for democrats and I don't. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nothing makes a workplace more miserable than high expectations coupled with bad management. On another note, I read an article a little while ago that I just cannot find to link. I remember it was in Time magazine. Anyway, it had suicide rates broken down by profession. Police and psychologists were number one and two. Surprisingly (or maybe not after reading Nights post) Computer Engineer/Software Engineer was in the top 10, around 5-6. Good luck Night. It sounds only a little less difficult than climbing Everest without supplemental oxygen though.

You know better than that. I said get the government out of the picture. Without government funding (and consequently interference) there is no science vs faith debate because the only thing they have in common IS government. Federal government that is. If any state wishes to fund any scientific research then they are free to do so as long as the state constitution allows. Florida does fund a number of research programs. Besides what you were wrong on is Bush did not veto Stem Cell research, he just said he would not pay for it.

Have you ever stood beside a murky lake and saw strange ripples and waves in what would otherwise be still water? It gives you the feeling there is something going on below the surface that you just can't see? Maybe something sinister? I get that feeling a lot these days when we talk about China and the far east. But kudos to the Japanese for laying the groundwork that may weaken the position of a rival. That is just good business.

Thats different. The constitution requires the Federal Government to maintain the military, so I have no complaint with defense spending. The amount, application and management of it, that is a different story. I was not defending Bush, I was calling Sand on something he said that was wrong.