Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Started by don Gabacho · · Last activity · 120 posts · 5,610 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
16 May 2007
Last activity
30 May 2007
Original author
don Gabacho
Posts
120
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
5,610
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 120
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:38:27 -0500, A Muzi <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But I know that as bad
    as the current system is in terms of high costs from the overhead of
    paperwork and bureaucracy, it would only be worse under a government
    run program.

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    That's why I don't take your comments on politics seriously -- you
    start with an extreme bias on some things like that.

    Extreme bias?
    Ever go to the DMV or the local Assessor's office?

    I was at the DMV two months ago to get an eye test and new license
    and it took about 15 minutes, or maybe a little less...I wasn't timing
    it. Though I only got a valid paper license on the spot -- the actual
    license with picture came a week or two later.

    Never been to an assessor's office.

    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  2. A Muzi said:
    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    Ever go to the DMV or the local Assessor's office?

    Ever go to a Mexican post office?

    If you want to pick-up anything you can wait for weeks until it occurs
    to you to pay a little something.

    On the bright side though: On the very day I'd leave going back to the
    states I'd mail a postcard to myself to my address in the states
    saying: "Hi John, Having a wondeful time in Isla, wish you were here!"

    The postcards would arrive about three months later just in time to
    remind me it was time to go on vacation again.

  3. Quoted message said:


    Private insurance companies and medical clinics have incentives to
    streamline their bureaucracies yet the bureaucracy and overhead is
    still huge. Why would you think a government program that lacked these
    incentives would be any better?

    Private insurers have an incentive to maximize profit... which is not
    the same as minimizing bureaucracy, if you have the power to rig
    certain terms and conditions to your advantage. As I see it, it's in
    the interest of insurers to make the process of getting medical
    treatment as expensive as possible, because that will make sure that
    as many people as possible see insurance coverage as a must-have item
    (can't afford to go without). Because their actuarial scheme takes
    into account the actual cost of treatment, plus administrative costs,
    plus profit margin, that means the more everything else costs, the
    more profit they get.

    The reason that no competing insurers cut their costs to get a bigger
    market share is because that would reduce the size of the pie that
    insurers get a piece of. It the same reason that no cell phone
    providers offer terms like what land-line long distance providers
    offer (use only as much as you want, pay for only what you use).
    Because if one of them offered that kind of service, all of them would
    have to do so to remain competitive. Customers would then pay less
    for what they got, and the gross revenue for all the commercial
    players in the business would dwindle. Thus it is in the interest of
    all the various medical insurers to make everything as expensive as
    people can possibly withstand.

    I think what JFT wants, what I want, and what a whole lot of other
    Americans want, is a medical system that covers everybody (because
    that's the right thing to do) without making a lot of private
    businesses rich at the taxpayers' expense (because that's the wrong
    thing to do). It isn't a fair or worthy use of public money to
    guarantee private profits. But getting everybody the medical
    attention they need is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing
    with public money.

    Cubans get better health care, by just about any measure, than
    Americans do. And they get it at a small fraction of what we pay.
    It's not because they don't have an onerous bureaucracy-- I'm sure
    they do-- but it probably has something to do with their taking the
    profiteers out of the supply chain.

    Chalo

  4. Chalo said:

    I think what JFT wants, what I want, and what a whole lot of other
    Americans want, is a medical system that covers everybody (because
    that's the right thing to do)

    Yes. Also likely less expensive overall.

    Quoted message said:

    without making a lot of private
    businesses rich at the taxpayers' expense (because that's the wrong
    thing to do). It isn't a fair or worthy use of public money to
    guarantee private profits.

    Oh, wait, you just said something bad. Next thing we know you'll want
    there to _not_ be a law preventing the US gov't from negotiating drug
    prices for Medicare; you'll expect Americans to be able to buy
    Canadian drugs packaged by US drug companies and sold for half the
    price; etc. After that you might be whining about oil companies who
    rape us getting giant tax subsidies and $400b wars intended to grab
    oil supplies for private profit. You're obviously not a patriot.

    Quoted message said:

    But getting everybody the medical
    attention they need is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing
    with public money.

    Ya think? Naw, let's let people keep paying $10K a year for $400 worth
    of annual doctors visits. It only seems fair.

  5. still me said:


    The Democrats can't seem to dull their ultra liberal
    wing long enough to build reasonable solutions that will work and
    couldn't market their way out of a box.

    The only thing "ultra liberal" about the Democratic party is the size
    of the portions they serve themselves from the corporate money
    buffet. The last _real_ (not to say ultra-) liberal to come to center
    stage was pointedly uninvited to the debates, and roundly ignored by
    the corporate media. That man was Ralph Nader, and by the standards
    of countries that actually have a left wing, he's a center-leftist.

    Chalo

  6. John Forrest Tomlinson said:


    I was at the DMV two months ago to get an eye test and new license
    and it took about 15 minutes, or maybe a little less...I wasn't timing
    it. Though I only got a valid paper license on the spot -- the actual
    license with picture came a week or two later.

    Yeah, now they have you in the database so they can have that national
    ID system we don't want.

  7. Chalo said:
    Quoted message said:

    The Democrats can't seem to dull their ultra liberal
    wing long enough to build reasonable solutions that will work and
    couldn't market their way out of a box.

    The only thing "ultra liberal" about the Democratic party is the size
    of the portions they serve themselves from the corporate money
    buffet. The last _real_ (not to say ultra-) liberal to come to center
    stage was pointedly uninvited to the debates, and roundly ignored by
    the corporate media. That man was Ralph Nader, and by the standards
    of countries that actually have a left wing, he's a center-leftist.

    I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
    out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
    are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
    your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
    liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
    doesn't get elected President.

    Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
    reality

  8. On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:36:47 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:


    I was at the DMV two months ago to get an eye test and new license
    and it took about 15 minutes, or maybe a little less...I wasn't timing
    it. Though I only got a valid paper license on the spot -- the actual
    license with picture came a week or two later.

    Yeah, now they have you in the database so they can have that national
    ID system we don't want.

    Yeah.
    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  9. On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:41:22 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
    out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
    are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
    your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
    liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream.

    WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  10. On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:41:22 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Liberal
    doesn't get elected President.

    Yeah, being liberal results in a couple percentage points difference
    in popular voting (up or down depending on which of the last two
    elections you're talking about).

    Big difference, huh? Big difference.
    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  11. John Forrest Tomlinson said:


    WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
    --
    JT

    The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
    do people who want to get elected President.

  12. John Forrest Tomlinson said:


    Yeah, being liberal results in a couple percentage points difference
    in popular voting (up or down depending on which of the last two
    elections you're talking about).

    Liberals don't get elected President. Take a look at how many lost in
    the last few decades. Centrists get elected. For the Democrats, that
    means conservative (relatively speaking) Democrats.

    Take a look a the last election. GWB the most vulnerable candidate
    running for re-election in many, many years. So, how could he possibly
    have won? Because the Dumbocrats were stupid enough to pick a Northern
    white liberal for a candidate. The bad news for them is that they are
    stupid enough to do something like that again by picking Hillary or
    Obama.

  13. On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:


    WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
    --
    JT

    The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
    do people who want to get elected President.

    George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.
    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:


    WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT

    The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
    do people who want to get elected President.

    George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

    And had an 80% approval rating for a while, which is as close to
    mainstream as a President can get; the last I heard it had sunk to
    26-28%. I think you underestimate the appeal of conservatism in a
    country where it's fashionable for self-identified groups of people to
    persuade themselves that they are under siege. Politicians- or at least
    political advisors- love to exploit this tendency by skillful use of
    wedge issues. But when that is exploited cynically, it comes back you
    bite you. We saw the consequences of that for the Democrats a few years
    back, now we are seeing the price the Republicans are paying.

    There is not a single political "center" in the U.S. In statistical
    terms, it's a trimodal distribution: a peak on the left, a peak on the
    right and a peak in the center. Each of the peaks, if more motivated
    than the other groups, can determine the outcome of an election. The
    left and right peaks are always disproportionately represented in U.S.
    elections because they are simply more motivated than the middle peak.
    In the past 25 years, that's especially been the "God, guns and guts
    made America great" crowd.

  15. Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >
    >WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT

    The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
    do people who want to get elected President.

    George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

    And had an 80% approval rating for a while, which is as close to
    mainstream as a President can get; the last I heard it had sunk to
    26-28%. I think you underestimate the appeal of conservatism in a
    country where it's fashionable for self-identified groups of people to
    persuade themselves that they are under siege.

    No, I think Bush might be viewed as conservative, which makes him
    appealing, but is not actually conservative. How can someone who
    spends so much much and is so opposed to indiviudal liberty be
    conservative?
    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  16. John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:


    WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
    --
    JT

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
    do people who want to get elected President.

    Quoted message said:

    George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

    Sure, but remember G. W. Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, not the
    general population or even the electoral college.

    --

    John ([email hidden])

  17. John Forrest Tomlinson said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    > On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
    > <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    >> WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT
    > The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
    > do people who want to get elected President.
    George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.


    And had an 80% approval rating for a while, which is as close to
    mainstream as a President can get; the last I heard it had sunk to
    26-28%. I think you underestimate the appeal of conservatism in a
    country where it's fashionable for self-identified groups of people to
    persuade themselves that they are under siege.

    No, I think Bush might be viewed as conservative, which makes him
    appealing, but is not actually conservative. How can someone who
    spends so much much and is so opposed to indiviudal liberty be
    conservative?

    How can Bush be appealing to anyone, conservative or not? He has done
    virtually nothing for our country and only seems capable of sending more
    troops in harms' way. This irritates me no end since I went through the
    Viet Nam debacle and almost got into the Army, but got turned down, by
    way of too many traffic tickets, and "Lack of respect for authority".
    The National Guard was a safe haven back then and now he is sending
    homeland security troops in harms' way, even though he used it to duck
    service.
    Does anybody else smell a rat.
    I do want him to stay healthy until the election, because God only knows
    what havoc Cheney could do as president.
    I support the troops, send Bush over with a gun.
    His pants might get a bit wet, but he could show them what a man he is.
    Bill Baka

  18. John Thompson said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
    > --
    > JT

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
    do people who want to get elected President.

    Quoted message said:

    George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

    Sure, but remember G. W. Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, not the
    general population or even the electoral college.


    Nobody I know voted for him the first time and I don't think the results
    of the voting were what made it to the news. His brother Jeb was the
    governor of Floriduh, after all, and with the families CIA connections
    how hard could it have been to fix the election.
    I do think the electoral college needs to be re-thought for modern times
    though.
    Bill Baka

  19. still me said:


    Chalo said:


    The only thing "ultra liberal" about the Democratic party is the size
    of the portions they serve themselves from the corporate money
    buffet. The last _real_ (not to say ultra-) liberal to come to center
    stage was pointedly uninvited to the debates, and roundly ignored by
    the corporate media. That man was Ralph Nader, and by the standards
    of countries that actually have a left wing, he's a center-leftist.

    I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
    out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
    are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
    your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
    liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
    doesn't get elected President.

    Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
    reality

    It looks like someone has been drawing his sustenance from Rupert
    Murdock's hind teat.

    Chalo

  20. In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Thompson said:

    On 2007-05-20, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >
    >WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center.
    So do people who want to get elected President.

    Quoted message said:

    George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

    Sure, but remember G. W. Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, not
    the general population or even the electoral college.

    Once, not twice. The American people re-inflicted GWB on themselves,
    again proving that in a democracy the people get the government they
    deserve.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.