Is Peace profitable? Is sickness prevention profitable?

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: I have heard that there exists a carbeurator that will allow cars to get 80 miles per gallon, I have also heard that there is a secret society called the Trilateral commission that rules the world, I have also head that Space Aliens are responsible for cattle mutilations. What I havn't actually seen is that there is any proof that any of that BS is true. If it is possible to make it Yorick, do so, then sell it cheap and make a billion dollars. You can't and no one can because there is always a little detail that gets left out of the story. The item require something that doesnt exist, or it would cost the equivelent of the national debt to make or...the list goes on and on. All the world is a conspiracy, the big evil corporations are keeping the proletariat down! down with corporations up with people!

So what you're saying is that it is impossible to improve on any technological position of today. If any idea of an invention appears it must be false because, without proof either way, it is just blatantly stupid. Does it never worry you MagiK that one day something might change and that your complete closed mindedness to that possibility might leave you looking a tad silly?

I've no idea whether or not these things exist, but dismissing them because they don't fit into your masterplan idea of how the world can only possibly work is not the way to go, I think.

And Attalus... would it be possible to solve your problems by getting the state to provide healthcare? Then the whole issue of having to make ends-meet kind of gets thrown out the window. The only concern is health, not what it costs. In theory anyway...

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by True_Moose: Health care is not an industry that should be profitable; much like education. In profits, you tend to lose the personal aspect of a case, which is incredibly important in both those jobs.

On the contrary, True Moose, teachers, and health professions too, must be well paid. Because salary is the way a society express its respect of a profession. In France too, we are confronted with the educational problems related to a growing disrespect of pupils towards their teachers. Now look at it that way : how can a teacher ever get respect from some brat who will throw in his/her face that his father makes much more money than he/she does ?

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: And Attalus... would it be possible to solve your problems by getting the state to provide healthcare? Then the whole issue of having to make ends-meet kind of gets thrown out the window. The only concern is health, not what it costs. In theory anyway...

Proof that it IS possible is that we have total health care for everyone in France. The system is mutualist, and goes like this : everyone pays for health care from his income, the Social Security public organism pays for 80% of health bills, and people subscribe to additional private organisms called "Mutuelles" that pay the rest of the health bills. And for all people who can't afford the additional cost, the extra cost is paid by the country. That way, everyone contributes according to his/her income, and everyone has the right to top-of-the-line medical care.

Oh, and MagiK, we had to wait for a socialist government to have the remaining 20% of health bills paid for all people who can't afford the extra cost. And France is not going into bankrupcy yet ...

[Moiraine]

Yorick, that's a big issue you are raising here ! My opinion is that such things have always happened in the history of mankind. I mean, people concentrating power and making every effort in order to keep it at all cost. Money is not the issue here, power is. The only diffence between now and anytime before in history, is that today power concentration occur on a worldwide level ...

I have no idea whether to adopt an optimistic or a pessimistic attitude about it. Whether humanity is going right to the wall at full speed, or whether the world has its macro way of regulating itself and will adapt and find a new equilibrium.

That is what is fully new. The worldwide scale of everything. For if it facilitates the concentration of power, it also means information flies through the world - in a way, it makes dictatorships of any kind both easier and impossible ...

[ 10-25-2002, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: And Attalus... would it be possible to solve your problems by getting the state to provide healthcare? Then the whole issue of having to make ends-meet kind of gets thrown out the window. The only concern is health, not what it costs. In theory anyway...

Proof that it IS possible is that we have total health care for everyone in France. The system is mutualist, and goes like this : everyone pays for health care from his income, the Social Security public organism pays for 80% of health bills, and people subscribe to additional private organisms called "Mutuelles" that pay the rest of the health bills. And for all people who can't afford the additional cost, the extra cost is paid by the country. That way, everyone contributes according to his/her income, and everyone has the right to top-of-the-line medical care.

Oh, and MagiK, we had to wait for a socialist government to have the remaining 20% of health bills paid for all people who can't afford the extra cost. And France is not going into bankrupcy yet ...

Do you know how long I have prayed that you would bring up the idea that france is a socialist country again? [img]smile.gif[/img] I have researched this little subject quite a bit since you last made that comment. AND the OFFICIAL position of the French Government is that France is NOT a socialist country, it is in fact a Republic.

I respect you and your opinions, but you seem to have a serious conflict with what your own government declares itself to be. There is a caveat, in that apparently the Socialist Political party is in power, but that is not the same thing as being a socialist state.

Here is more evidence that France is not a socialist country. Private individuals own property.. In the socialist scheme, no one would own land nor other properties and it would all belong to the people, or state. There are also millions of private enterprises, individually owned shops and the like. Again these people are working for their own gain not for the betterment of the people.

So I will admit your knowledge of your country must be greater than mine. I submit to you, the Official French Governments statement about the French Government.

Government
Type: Republic.
Constitution: September 28, 1958.
Branches: Executive--president (chief of state); prime minister (head of government). Legislative--bicameral Parliament (577-member National Assembly, 319-member Senate). Judicial--Court of Cassation (civil and criminal law), Council of State (administrative court), Constitutional Council (constitutional law).
Subdivisions: 22 administrative regions containing 96 departments (metropolitan France). Four overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and Reunion); five overseas territories (New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna Islands, and French Southern and Antarctic Territories); and two special status territories (Mayotte and St. Pierre and Miquelon).
Political parties: Rally for the Republic (Gaullists/conservatives); Union for French Democracy (a center-right conglomerate of 5 parties: Democratic Force, Republican Party, and Radical Party are the three major components.) Socialist Party; Communist Party; National Front; Greens; Ecology Generation; various minor parties.
Suffrage: Universal at 18.

This doesnt look very socialistic to me.
Thank you [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: [QB And Attalus... would it be possible to solve your problems by getting the state to provide healthcare? Then the whole issue of having to make ends-meet kind of gets thrown out the window. The only concern is health, not what it costs. In theory anyway...[/QB]

Actually, the only way that Britain and the other countries that have socialized medicine can afford it is that the USA has to maintain the only decent armed forces that maintain order, keep the sea lanes open, etc. We simply cannot afford socialized medicine. Nice for those of you that do.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

So what you're saying is that it is impossible to improve on any technological position of today. If any idea of an invention appears it must be false because, without proof either way, it is just blatantly stupid. Does it never worry you MagiK that one day something might change and that your complete closed mindedness to that possibility might leave you looking a tad silly?

I've no idea whether or not these things exist, but dismissing them because they don't fit into your masterplan idea of how the world can only possibly work is not the way to go, I think.

If you read carefully, both my comment and what it was in response to, you might detect that wether those things exist or not is immaterial and not what my comment was illustrating. I was using sarcasm to show what I thought about this apparently common idea that Corporations are keeping the people from getting really effective technology because they wouldnt make enough money. Next time I'll try to remember to put subtitles

And Attalus... would it be possible to solve your problems by getting the state to provide healthcare? Then the whole issue of having to make ends-meet kind of gets thrown out the window. The only concern is health, not what it costs. In theory anyway...

Ok Barry, where does the state get the money to pay the doctors with? Lets look at Hawaii, since someone else brought that up. The have been passing a lot of restrictive healthcare guidlines and right now the people are pretty happy with it. What no one is talking about publicly is that all the major providers are looking at dropping the business in hawaii because they are loosing money. Right now my company is shifting the cost to other states via accounting tricks. So actually the people and state of hawaii are not even covering their own costs. I don't know any doctor who will work for free nor any nurse, nor nurse practitioner.

Another example would be, is what Oregon is thinking about doing. which is gaurenteeing every man woman and child in Oregon full medical and dental benefits. They believe they can do it for roughly 19 Billion Dollars a year. The only catch is...with the current tax rates in the state the entire income of the state of Oregon is only 16 Billion dollars per year. So they want to more than double that. (and that is only if the numbers don't grow with time) How long do you think the people of Oregon will continue to live and work in Oregon if their taxes mroe than doubl? oregon will also set price caps on treatment and medications. How many health care providers do you think will stay in the state if they have to loose money? And lastly. How many homeless and transients will move to Oregon to take advantage of this nifty little plan? If you want to know, ask Georgia Residents what happened when they offered free college education benefits. (I think it was georgia that tried that...one of those southern cotton states [img]smile.gif[/img] )[/QUOTE]

[ 10-25-2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Donut]

I think you can have a socialist Government within a republican framework. We are a Democratic Monarchy and we had socialist Governments in the 60's and 70's.

Even now we have Tony B..... err scrap that!

[ 10-25-2002, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

Originally posted by Donut: I think you can have a socialist Government within a republican framework. We are a Democratic Monarchy and we had socialist Governments in the 60's and 70's. Even now we have Tony B..... err scrap that! You had socialistic governments, doesnt equate to being a socialist state. I doubt seriously if many in the UK would like to have a true socialistic state. And if they would...why aren't they now?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Leonis: If the average joe was to come up with, say an engine that ran on garbage ala Back To The Future ie: very cheap and accessible fuel, you can gaurantee(sp?) the corporate hitmen would be in like steam, and the espionage/sabotage in full swing. The ultra rich are so because they act the way Yorick says and deny competition using some amazing means. Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory? Think again. Naivity will get you killed.

Kinda like the way the Big buggie companies, stopped the automobile from coming to market, or the way the big Slide-rule companies stoped the calculator from ever seeing the light of day, or like the way the big wax and wick companies squashed Thomas Edison, or the way Sears Roebuck denied Walmart the ability to get into business. No wait I know you're talking about the way Mircosoft stopped it's competition, by getting sued and broken up

Corporate hitmen and espionage/sabotage while it may go on, those are more prevalent in the Movies.

Naive and paranoid are different sides of the same coin.