Poll

22 votes (66.66%)
11 votes (33.33%)

33 members have voted

weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 4:44:04 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

And you have absolutely no way of knowing that.


Nope. Neither do you.

Quote:

As a matter of fact, they are puny. Comparing Roths to Traditionals,


I think, you "forgot" about the other category of income that is not taxed. Why am I not surprised?

Quote:

You just cited Roth IRAs as being so influential. Apparently you do not realize that taxes are paid on that money while working.


On Roth yes, on traditional no. What I said is if you have traditional IRA, and are paying taxes on the retirement income it generates for you, these are taxes you have not paid while working, not some "new" taxes you are paying now because you are such a valuable member of society.

Besides, Nareed was talking about taxes on the interest that the retirement account generates, not on distributions. Interest on IRA, either Roth or traditional, is not taxed, only distributions are. So, technically, I was correct saying that the income in question would not be taxed without any additional clarification. The interest was the only such income worth considering, because that is the only "new" money in the picture - all the other money, earned while working, is not in question, since we were discussing the topic of Nareed "free loading" while on retirement, not while working.

Of course, you don't really care about any of the clarifications, or even meaning of any particular statement, let alone the topic of the entire discussion. Your objective is to find something - a typo, a misstatement, an omission or a digression - anything, you can capitalize on, and get on your high horse. And if nothing can easily be found, like in my case, the solution is simple - just invent something I never said at all, pretend I did, and argue with that.

OMG, I have not had a discussion of such intelligence level since high school :) Thank you so much for making me feel young again!


Quote:

That is not guaranteed anywhere.


No it is not guaranteed. It is just what happens.

Quote:

Then you should explain more clearly than writing implicit sentences like these in references to taxes


I never wrote that "in reference to taxes". And, no, I should not explain it "more clearly". Sapienti sat.
I make a statement about FDIC, without a single mention of taxes anywhere, and it is so "unclear" to you, that you decide to assume, the statement must be in reference to taxes, and it must mean that taxes pay for FDIC.

If that sentence was unclear to you, I think all I can do about it is to ask you withhold your comments about any of my statements in the future because apparently you cannot understand what I am talking about.


Quote:

If you're referring to the confusion about the uncovered,


No, I am referring to the "confusion" about a family earning 60K a year being able to qualify for medicaid.

Quote:

your response was that you didn't know whether the figure is 35 million, 50 million or 85 million.
By checking your side's arguments and data, you might be able to present them better here instead of being so upset when challenged.



No, my response was that 50 million were uninsured long term, and 36.7 million short term, for the total of 86.7 million. By reading the other side's statements before responding to them, you might be able not to come out as a person, who does not know or care what the discussion is about, and just rushes in with his five cents to give himself that warm feeling of importance.
But wait ... that was not even a discussion with you to begin with ... Apparently, you just saw a couple of numbers somewhere on the page, and felt obligated to comment not only without caring about the topic of the discussion, but without even bothering to read a couple of sentences surrounding the numbers. Who cares, right? It's a number, so it must be possible to challenge it. And if you end up with an egg on your face after all, you can always say you just misunderstood, because the opponent has to be "more clear". Such a fool-proof strategy! Like Martingale applied to the real life! (I can't wait to see your reply where you take the last sentence and try to spin it to look like I am saying that Martingale is a good strategy :)).

I don't feel challenged by you, that's the problem. What you are doing is not challenging any of my arguments, you are just trying attack me, because you don't like what I said. And you are not very good at that, either because you are not paying attention or lacking basic discussion skills, or both. Your attacks baseless, as they are, lack subtlety and elegance that could keep the discussion interesting nevertheless, and are simply lame and desperate.
I am not upset by it, more like ... amused. By your posts in other threads you seemed to me like a more intelligent guy than this.


Quote:

Says someone who does not understand what Roth IRA's and erroneously posts their taxation rules.



There you go again. I guess, I was "unclear" somewhere again :)

Quote:


If you bothered to read the sentence you reposted, you would see that it did not refer to insurance companies
"And that is the system that draws people from around the world to receive their health care here."


Yes, and the word "system" referred to the hypothetical system from my example, you mistakenly thought is implemented in USA, where employers are paying for the [universal] health insurance coverage. So, it sounds like you maintain, that it is the health insurance system that draws people here to get medical procedures? You are so funny ... Like my five year old, wanting to "win" so desperately, that she cannot even see how she is digging herself deeper and deeper.


Quote:


It seems as if the doubting will have to continue, as it appears you have not been able to gather the data to back up your assertions.


My assertions? Really? You make an unfounded, unsubstantiated claim. I say I doubt it. Your response is I'll have to continue doubting unless I bother to back it up myself ... WOW! This is priceless!
Let me guess ... Super-duper Community College Discussion Club?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 6:03:37 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Shows some more of what you don't know.


Well, it's not hard. I have never claimed to know everything. Especially about Mexican insurance system.

Quote:

My insurance policy, from a Mexican insurer, includes treatment in the US. That's a very common option, much sought after, in health insurance.


Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 7:31:35 AM permalink
The actual number of uninsured Americans is found here. I think the census bureau is fairly reliable.

Quote: Census Bureau

The number of uninsured people increased to 50.7 million in 2009 from 46.3 million in 2008.



Quote: Census

The number of people with health insurance decreased to 253.6 million in 2009 from 255.1 million in 2008. This is the first year that the number of people with health insurance has decreased since 1987, the first year that comparable health insurance data were collected. The number of people covered by
private health insurance decreased to 194.5 million in 2009 from 201.0 million in 2008. The number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 93.2 million in 2009 from 87.4 million in 2008 (Table C-1).



To quell the method of their data gathering, they state

Quote:

What Is Health Insurance Coverage?

The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) asks about health insurance coverage in the previous calendar year. Specifically, the survey asks separate questions about the major types of health insurance. People who answer “no” to each of the coverage questions are then asked to verify that they were, in fact, not covered by any type of health insurance. For reporting purposes, the U.S. Census Bureau broadly classifies health insurance coverage as private coverage or government coverage. Private health insurance is a plan provided through an employer or a union or purchased by an individual from a private company. Government health insurance includes such federal programs as Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care; the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); and individual state health plans.* People were considered “insured” if they were covered by any type of health insurance
for part or all of the previous calendar year. They were considered “uninsured” if, for the entire year, they were not covered by any type of health insurance.

Research shows health insurance coverage is underreported in the CPS ASEC for a variety of reasons. Annual retrospective questions appear to cause few problems when collecting income data (possibly because the interview period is close to when people pay their taxes). However, because health insurance coverage status can change over the course of a year, answering questions about this long reference period may lead to response errors. For example, some people may report their insurance coverage status at the time of their interview rather than their coverage status during the previous calendar year. Compared with other national
surveys, the CPS ASEC’s estimate of the number of people without health insurance more closely approximates the number of people who were uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year. There are several ongoing projects aimed at improving the quality of health coverage data from the CPS ASEC, including cognitive research and field testing to improve the wording of the CPS ASEC health coverage questions.



So based on the census bureau data, the number quoted represents those uninsured at a point during the year.

Based on the data which is divided by race, age, and income, here are some interesting tidbits:

- 46% of foreign born non-citizens are uninsured, representing 9.936 million (of 50.674 million uninsured).
- 30.761 million earn less than 50K. 10.561 million earn more than 75K (uninsured rate = 9.1%).
- For those of working age between 18 and 64. 14.589 million are full time workers (15.2% of full time workers are uninsured). 13.222 million are not working (29.1% uninsured)
- 15.824 million (32%) of hispanics are uninsured.
- only 676 thousand of 38.613 million senior citizens over the age of 65 are uninsured (1.8%)
- only 10 million children are without health insurance.

One can draw some conclusions from this study.
- There is a segment of the population (10 million) who are foreign born non-citizens. There will probably be a strong argument that these people should be non-insured.
- There is a segment of the population (10.6 million) who earn more than 75K and most probably afford their own insurance and choose to be uninsured.
- There is a segment of the population (14.6 million) who are working full time and are not covered by an employer plan.
- A large segment of the population (47.8 million are covered by medicaid). 43.4 million are covered by medicare.

CBP published a study in 2003 stating that 78.4% of those without health insurance had not had it for a year or longer. 8% were without for 4 months or less and 14% were without health insurance for 5-12 months.

So, if one was to take the 50.674 million uninsured Americans, take off 10 million for foreign non-borns and 10.6 million earning over 75K. That's 30 million. Take away another 8% (2.4 million) for those who probably are in a temporary state of having no insurance and you're down to 27.6 million uninsured residents who are not insured because they can't afford to be. This represents about 9% of US residents in the study.

----
So, can we please stop arguing about the true number of uninsured US residents out there.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 7:41:40 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?



You said insurers are not responsible for foreigners seeking treatment in the USA. I showed you they are.

Supposedly my policy includes coverage in any country, but the heart of the matter is not whether I can get reimbursed for an emergency in the Fiji Islands, but whether I can seek treatment in America. The policy does allow it.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 7:51:21 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

You said insurers are not responsible for foreigners seeking treatment in the USA. I showed you they are.


I said no such thing. Why are you and Sancho so big on twisting other people's words? Do you get some kind of warm feeling by "beating" me in a discussion?

What I said was that the American health insurance system is not what is attracting foreign people to come here to get treatment. Surely, if I was in Mexico, and could get treated in US, and get someone else (the insurance) pay for it, I'd rather go there, than get treated in a country where you get sick by drinking tap water. But what the hell does it have to do with the current discussion?

Quote:

Supposedly my policy includes coverage in any country, but the heart of the matter is not whether I can get reimbursed for an emergency in the Fiji Islands, but whether I can seek treatment in America. The policy does allow it.


No, the heart of the matter is that your policy is better than pretty much any policy a regular American carries over here. And that is just a shame, exactly what I am talking about.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 8:00:57 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

What I said was that the American health insurance system is not what is attracting foreign people to come here to get treatment.



I supposed you knew that, naturally, my insurer has agreements with US insurers. Also with others, but as I said the important part is America.

Quote:

Surely, if I was in Mexico, and could get treated in US, and get someone else (the insurance) pay for it, I'd rather go there, than get treated in a country where you get sick by drinking tap water.



Well, well, another show of ignorance.

Actually Mexico has top-notch medical care in the private aprt of helathcare. I'd pit the ABC Hospital and the Angeles hospital against anything in America and lay even odds. What's lacking are 1) hospitals specialized in a major disease like cancer or heart disease and 2) cutting-edge therapies, often found at the specialized hospitals.

And FYI, you don't get sick from tap water if you install a simple filter in the tap. I've been drinking such tap water all my life.

Quote:

No, the heart of the matter is that your policy is better than pretty much any policy a regular American carries over here.



Certainly. It has a high deductible and doesn't cover paper cuts and headaches. It carries no excessive mandates for useless therapies, nor over-testing overhead from nervous doctors.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 8:38:45 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

I supposed you knew that, naturally, my insurer has agreements with US insurers.


No, I neither know nor care what your insurer has or does. Why should I? The discussion was about the American health insurance system, used by American residents.
If your insurer found a way to use it for its benefit, kudos to them, but why should I care. Like you said yourself, you are covered everywhere in the world, so there is nothing special about American insurance system that "attracts" you to the states to get treatment.
It is the Mexican system that makes it possible for you, and it is the American medical technology that, potentially attracts you, not the (broken beyond repair, and shameful) insurance system.


Quote:

Well, well, another show of ignorance.


Don't gloat :)

Why should I not be ignorant about Mexican health care? Why should I even care about it?
I had some experience with Mexican doctors when I was there on vacation, and got sick by accidentally drinking tap water, and that experience was not pleasant. I am not a big fan of USA health care system, as you know, but, given a choice, I'll choose that over getting treated in Mexico any day of the week.

Perhaps, it's normal, that you, being Mexican prefer Mexican stuff, while I like American more.
I am not sure what your point is any more though. Perhaps, we should just drop it, and agree that the importance of tap water not making you sicker than when you came in, or a doctor not hustling you for "tip" while you are green from hours of diarrhea when choosing a health care provider is a matter of taste, or, perhaps, just a cultural preference.


Quote:

And FYI, you don't get sick from tap water if you install a simple filter in the tap. I've been drinking such tap water all my life.


Well, again, I don't have much knowledge to go by or much evidence to refute your point, other than that I have been told differently many times having been in various (fairly high-end) Mexican resorts over years. I find it hard to believe, that all those five star resorts were too cheap to "install a simple filter" to keep their visitors from getting sick, but then again, perhaps, it's just a cultural thing ...



Quote:

Certainly.


Q.E.D
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 8:54:19 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

No, I neither know nor care what your insurer has or does. Why should I? The discussion was about the American health insurance system, used by American residents.



My insurance agent would gladly sell you a policy. Interested?

Quote:

Don't gloat :)



I have not yet begun to.

Quote:

Perhaps, it's normal, that you, being Mexican prefer Mexican stuff, while I like American more.



My goal is to move to America, which overall is a better palce to live. But I'll keep my insurance as is.

Quote:

I am not sure what your point is any more though. Perhaps, we should just drop it, and agree that the importance of tap water not making you sicker than when you came in, or a doctor not hustling you for "tip" while you are green from hours of diarrhea when choosing a health care provider is a matter of taste, or, perhaps, just a cultural preference.



Well, the bigotry comes out. Thank you.

Quote:

Well, again, I don't have much knowledge to go by or much evidence to refute your point, other than that I have been told differently many times having been in various (fairly high-end) Mexican resorts over years. I find it hard to believe, that all those five star resorts were too cheap to "install a simple filter" to keep their visitors from getting sick, but then again, perhaps, it's just a cultural thing ...



No one puts filters at the tap in the bathroom. They're placed on dedicated taps at the kitchen sink, or in large places just dedicated large taps, with large filters in the kitchen. You're not supposed to drink from the tap in your room. A decent resort will rpovide a "complimentary" bottle of water or two and psot a warning not to drink from the tap.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 9:01:27 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

My insurance agent would gladly sell you a policy. Interested?


I might be. Give me the details.

Quote:

I have not yet begun to.


I am frightened already

Quote:

My goal is to move to America, which overall is a better palce to live. But I'll keep my insurance as is.


Exactly. So you have successfully made your point, that in Mexico universally accessible government run system can perfectly coexist with private insurance, far superior to what currently exists here, yet continue to stubbornly insist on it being impossible in US. Why?


Quote:

Well, the bigotry comes out. Thank you.


Bigotry? Please ...

Quote:

A decent resort will rpovide a "complimentary" bottle of water or two and psot a warning not to drink from the tap.


Yeah, that's what they do, which is an indication for me that the "simple filter" they could have installed instead is not so simple after all.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 9:19:59 AM permalink
Let us be clear. Mexico offers a two tiered system. Lifted from Wiki:

"Health care in Mexico is provided via public institutions, private entities, or private physicians. Health care delivered through private health care organizations operates entirely on the free-market system, i.e., it is available to those who can afford it. This is also the case of health care obtained from private physicians at their private office or clinic. Public health care delivery, on the other hand, is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system put in place by the Mexican Federal Government."

"Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Public care is either fully or partially subsidized by the federal government, depending on the person's (Spanish: derechohabiente's) employment status. All Mexican citizens are eligible for subsidized health care regardless of their work status via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency."

"Employed citizens and their dependents, however, are further eligible to use the health care program administered and operated by the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) (English: Mexican Social Security Institute). The IMSS health care program is a tripartite system funded equally by the employee, its private employer, and the federal government."

"The IMSS does not provide service to employees of the public sector. Employees in the public sector are serviced by the Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE) (English: Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers), which attends to the health and social care needs of government employees. This includes local, state, and federal government employees."

So I call bull-shit.

Another article I'm reading states that only 4% of people in mexico have private health insurance. Nareed must be one of them, as the 96% of the country has socialized medicine. Given that Nareed is working through the transgender process, he probably (I am guessing) has the money to pay privately. My point is that Nareed's experience represents a very small proportion of Mexicans.

From a CBC article in late 2009 (here).

Quote: CBC News

The health-care system in Mexico is a patchwork of evolving and sometimes confusing services for 105 million people in a country still suffering from diseases of the developing world, such as tuberculosis and malaria. Meanwhile, first world maladies have also been emerging — the World Health Organization lists diabetes as the leading cause of death in Mexico, followed by heart and liver disease.

Mexicans have everything from a small, private system to huge universal health insurance programs that mix private, public and employer funding. Despite the array of services, it's an unequal system, says the Pan American Health Organization, "since the various providers receive different levels of payment and provide different levels of care at various levels of quality."

Public health-care spending in Mexico is rising, but it still has one of the lowest per capita expenditures among OECD countries, with just 6.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). That worked out to about $800 per person in 2006. Canada, in comparison, spent close to $3,700 per person that year and now spends more than $5,000 per person.

Here's roughly how the Mexican private health system is structured:

- About three million wealthy and middle class Mexicans (and foreigners working in Mexico) pay private insurers to gain access to high-quality, state of the art medical services. Many Mexicans who are insured through the public insurance system also pay out of pocket for private care to get better service. Mexico's private sector is booming. New clinics and specialized hospitals are growing rapidly in Mexico City, Guadalajara and especially Monterrey. In fact, Monterrey is becoming a big centre for medical tourism, particularly for Americans trying to escape their own expensive health-care system. They're flocking to the city's growing number of gleaming new hospitals for everything from obesity surgery and angioplasty to hip replacements. A hip replacement in the U.S. can cost from $43,000 to $63,000 but in Mexico it's a bargain at around $12,000.

There is also a public system:
- About 50 million salaried Mexicans pay into an insurance scheme, along with their employers and the government, through the Institute of Social Security. The employee pays a progressive amount, according to his or her wage. The institute runs its own primary care units and state hospitals for insured workers, although the quality varies considerably. Critics say some establishments are not properly managed and lack adequate equipment.
- About 17 million state employees have a separate, parallel scheme that they pay into through the Institute of Security and Social Services for State Workers. They also have their own clinics and hospitals.
- The army and navy also have their own separate insurance programs, funded partly through social services, as do employees at Mexico's state-owned petroleum company, Pemex.
- Roughly 40 million uninsured Mexicans — the country's poorest — all began moving toward universal access to full health coverage in 2003 through a program called Seguro Popular (Popular Health Insurance). It's the most ambitious health insurance program in Mexico to be launched since the beginning of social security in the country in 1943, and it's meant to reduce the inequality of health services and stop poor families from being financially wiped out by an illness. The federal government has set a target date of 2010 to provide the coverage to all uninsured Mexicans although it's uncertain whether they're on track. Families pay a premium to join, based on their income, and have to make preventive health-care visits at clinics. About 20 per cent of the poorest families pay nothing.

----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 11:24:20 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I might be. Give me the details.



Do I look like an insurance agent? Look up mexican insurers on the web. Mine is GNC.

Quote:

Exactly. So you have successfully made your point, that in Mexico universally accessible government run system can perfectly coexist with private insurance, far superior to what currently exists here, yet continue to stubbornly insist on it being impossible in US. Why?



Because Americans wouldn't stand for what passes for "free" government healthcare in Mexico. Mexicans barely do. There are some decent doctors. I'd say the majority are competent and care about their patients, in a bureaucratic, condescending sort of way.

I'll tell you of one case. My boss was heading to an appointment at the Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI. That's a vast, two-block big, campus with 4 spacialty hospitals and some clinics. Next to it is el Hospital General de México, a general hospital and a bunch of clinics taking up also two city blocks. On the back is el Hospital Infantil de México, a one block big pediatric hospital.

The boss' driver, who suffers from diabetes, started feeling poorly when they arrived. Lucky he had a huge concentration of doctors right in front of him, yes?

Well, no.

They tried upon arriving at Siglo XXI, but were told he was not affiliated, so he might want to try the emergency area next door, but warned them there would be a long line. It would be best if he would head towards his assigned clinic, belongign to yet another agency and located, oh, 15 miles away through city traffic.

But don't take my word for it. Public care is so good, the people who run the healthcare agencies contract pirvate insurance.

But, sure, everyone's "covered."

Quote:

Yeah, that's what they do, which is an indication for me that the "simple filter" they could have installed instead is not so simple after all.



Dind't I just say the filters go in the kitchens? And why did you drink from the tap if the sign said not to?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 12:03:23 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Do I look like an insurance agent? Look up mexican insurers on the web. Mine is GNC.



I have no idea what you look like. You offered, I agreed, you backed out. Fine.

Quote:

Because Americans wouldn't stand for what passes for "free" government healthcare in Mexico.
Mexicans barely do.


What is it? Bigotry? Thank you.

Quote:

There are some decent doctors. I'd say the majority are competent and care about their patients, in a bureaucratic, condescending sort of way.


That is not the point. The point is that government run program not only can and does coexist with private insurance providers, which you and others sharing your point of view claim to be impossible, but also those private providers turn out to be much better than those that the "best health care system in the world" currently has.

This is direct prove of the very point I am making - it can work, it does work, it makes things better. What is it you keep arguing about here? You don't like "free" healthcare? Fine, you have (and use) an option not to use it. The main difference between you and me is that (1) you have more choices, (2) you have insurance coverage, superior to mine, and (3) if something unexpected happens, making you unable to pay your premiums any more, you will still be able to get medical help should you need it.
I say, your position is better than mine in all respects where medical coverage is concerned. You yourself soudn like you would not want to trade with me ("I am keeping my insurance"), yet you keep arguing against the idea of more or less replicating your situation - superior in all respects - over here. Why? Are you just a secret America hater, trying to deprive it from the great benefits Mexican people are enjoying?

Quote:

They tried upon arriving at Siglo XXI, but were told he was not affiliated, so he might want to try the emergency area next door, but warned them there would be a long line. It would be best if he would head towards his assigned clinic, belongign to yet another agency and located, oh, 15 miles away through city traffic.



I can be telling you true stories like this about American ERs all night, literally, and I would not run out.

Quote:

Dind't I just say the filters go in the kitchens? And why did you drink from the tap if the sign said not to?


Yes, you did say that. I am just saying there must be a reason they are not going into hotel rooms. The warnings, posted everywhere are scary, especially for people, coming from the states or from Europe, the hotels must definitely be losing some business because of that. Add to it people getting sick all the time despite the warnings (kids most notably) ... If it was as simple as you imply to put in the filter and be done with it, I am sure they would do it.

I did not drink from the tap. I was served a glass of water in a restaurant, which I am assuming now had come from the tap, since it made me sick. This was not the only time. A few years ago my daughter got sick because she was brushing her teeth, and drunk some of the tap water in the process. I suppose, it is still my fault, as I failed to monitor her, and I don't decline responsibility, but that's not the point ...
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 12:56:40 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

That is not the point. The point is that government run program not only can and does coexist with private insurance providers, which you and others sharing your point of view claim to be impossible, but also those private providers turn out to be much better than those that the "best health care system in the world" currently has.



Sure. If you don't mind having a piss poor "free" system where you have to wait for everything from appointments to procedures, and which may or may not have the medications you need. I'm not talking about personal stories, and you missed the point I made anyway, but about hard statistics published from time to time in the newspapers.

Oh, but at the same time the workers for the "free" healthcare agencies enjoy perks like a 90-day salary equivalent Xmas bonus (tax free), 4 weeks paid vacation, retirement at 50-55 with 125% of base pay plus paid vacation and the Christmas bonus. That's where a lot of the money goes.

Quote:

and (3) if something unexpected happens, making you unable to pay your premiums any more, you will still be able to get medical help should you need it.



I've seen the "free" hospitals, remember? I'd sooner sell my car and my house than go without insurance.


Quote:

I say, your position is better than mine in all respects where medical coverage is concerned. You yourself soudn like you would not want to trade with me ("I am keeping my insurance"), yet you keep arguing against the idea of more or less replicating your situation - superior in all respects - over here. Why? Are you just a secret America hater, trying to deprive it from the great benefits Mexican people are enjoying?



I wouldn't trade with you because the US government keeps meddling into the insurance market. If it didn't, as I've outlined in another post, then given America's superior economic prowess and overall higher productivity, you'd have a hell of a lot better insurance than I do. And because incredibly the Mexican government has manages to ahve a populist "free" system that half works without touching the rest of the healthcare system that works, and who knows how long that will last?

That's why.


Quote:

Yes, you did say that. I am just saying there must be a reason they are not going into hotel rooms.



Becasue no one puts them in the bathroom. they go in the kitchen sink. You might as well drink from the shower head or the garden hose.

Quote:

I did not drink from the tap. I was served a glass of water in a restaurant, which I am assuming now had come from the tap, since it made me sick. This was not the only time. A few years ago my daughter got sick because she was brushing her teeth, and drunk some of the tap water in the process. I suppose, it is still my fault, as I failed to monitor her, and I don't decline responsibility, but that's not the point ...



Remarkable. In all your stay you consumed only one glass of water and your daughter consumed nothing but some water she swallowed while brushing her teeth? How'd you mannage that?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 1:24:09 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

"Employed citizens and their dependents, however, are further eligible to use the health care program administered and operated by the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) (English: Mexican Social Security Institute). The IMSS health care program is a tripartite system funded equally by the employee, its private employer, and the federal government."



What this doesn't tell you is that all salaried workers MUST pay into the IMSS. In theory this also includes independent workers who receive an honrarium or who otherwise charge for their services outisde of a payroll. In pracitce, only payroll workers pay to the IMSS. Many would not if given the chance, and would rather apply that money, along with their employer's matching contribution, towards private insurance. What they can't afford is to pay double, once for IMSS and once for their own insurance. And if the government allowed people to opt out, the IMSS would collapse in jig time.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 1:25:47 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Sure. If you don't mind having a piss poor "free" system where you have to wait for everything from appointments to procedures, and which may or may not have the medications you need.



Exactly. I already have to wait for everything everywhere, and the medications I need may or may not be covered.
It is terrible as it is, and it costs a small fortune. If it was free, it would be much less terrible.

Besides, notice, that the idea I am advocating is not the same that exists in Mexico. I am not proposing nationalizing medical providers, those will still be private, so I don't really see any reason for them to even notice very much difference with what they are seeing now.

Quote:

I'm not talking about personal stories, and you missed the point I made anyway, but about hard statistics published from time to time in the newspapers.



Hard statistics are published here as well. I feel though that in this case personal stories are a lot more ... personal.
If every time I need an ER service, I end up having to spend all night there, and every time I need a neurologist appointment, I have to go through friends and connections to get one earlier than six months from now, I could really care less about the statistics. I believe my own eyes. (This is not to say that there is much of a contradiction between what I see, and the official statistics - they are pretty much in a perfect agreement).



Quote:

Oh, but at the same time the workers for the "free" healthcare agencies enjoy perks like a 90-day salary equivalent Xmas bonus (tax free), 4 weeks paid vacation, retirement at 50-55 with 125% of base pay plus paid vacation and the Christmas bonus. That's where a lot of the money goes.


Well ... nothing is perfect, I guess ... These are implementation details. Maybe, you guys did not get it perfect. Maybe we can do better, maybe, we can't. We'll never know unless we try. That's a different story. I am talking about the principle, the general idea. The example of Mexico (as well as, pretty much, every other civilized country in the world) shows that it can and does work. Not perfectly, mind you, but I am not looking for perfection, I am only looking for an improvement.


Quote:

I've seen the "free" hospitals, remember? I'd sooner sell my car and my house than go without insurance.


Well. What will you do after you have sold your car and your house, and still need access to health care?


Quote:

I wouldn't trade with you because the US government keeps meddling into the insurance market.


No, it doesn't. Obamacare is the first attempt in decades. And it will be repealed anyway.

Quote:

If it didn't, as I've outlined in another post, then given America's superior economic prowess and overall higher productivity, you'd have a hell of a lot better insurance than I do.


That's what I don't believe. The difference is that Mexican insurers have to provide good value or go out of business, because the consumers have a true choice in the matter, while in the US, they can be as crappy and expensive as they want, while having the highest profit margin, and still get business, simply because the consumer has nowhere else to turn, aside from the ridiculous suggestion of going completely without insurance.



Quote:

Becasue no one puts them in the bathroom.


So, your answer to the question "why no one puts it in the bathroom?" is "because no one puts them in the bathroom"? Nice ... :)

Quote:

You might as well drink from the shower head or the garden hose.


Yup, I might ... if I am not in Mexico (or in Africa, or a few Caribbean islands) :)



Quote:

Remarkable. In all your stay you consumed only one glass of water and your daughter consumed nothing but some water she swallowed while brushing her teeth? How'd you mannage that?



No, what in the world made you think that? We had bottled drinking water in the room. We did drink water in restaurants (until that little incident, after which we switched to bottled beer), and consumed lots of free alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks in the bars. I can't begin to imagine the logical chain that led you the conclusion that I only consumed a single glass of water during my stay.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 1:30:22 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I can't begin to imagine the logical chain that led you the conclusion that I only consumed a single glass of water during my stay.



Because you're certain that's what made you sick. I don't see how that can be other than you didn't comsume anything else, and therfore know that's what did it.

BTW if you think Obamacare was the first meddling in decades in the medical marketplace in America, you are either ignorant or delusional. Either way, there's no sense arguing with you any further.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 1:57:42 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Because you're certain that's what made you sick. I don't see how that can be other than you didn't comsume anything else, and therfore know that's what did it.



You mean, aside from what the doc told me? :)

Quote:

BTW if you think Obamacare was the first meddling in decades in the medical marketplace in America, you are either ignorant or delusional. Either way, there's no sense arguing with you any further.


Maybe, I am a little bit of both :)
I am not a big political nut or anything. I read the news, and that's about the extent of it.
Insurance industry is regulated, sure (I would think it is regulated in Mexico as well), but so are the banks, the telephone companies, the cable TV providers, and lots of others. I don't know of anything specific that the government has done to health insurance industry specifically to cause it get so horribly broken compared to any other sector of the economy or any other country in the world.
If you can point me to some government action, hurting health insurance specifically, as opposed to auto insurance, banking, trading, transportation, housing etc., please do so. Otherwise, please just admit you are at least as ignorant as I am in this matter :)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 2:05:34 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

You mean, aside from what the doc told me? :)



The doctor tested all you consumed?


Quote:

If you can point me to some government action, hurting health insurance specifically, as opposed to auto insurance, banking, trading, transportation, housing etc., please do so.



I wrote a lenghty post about it. Try reading it.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 2:35:10 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

The doctor tested all you consumed?



I doubt that. I suppose, it was more like an educated guess on his part.
I also did my own deductive analysis, that went something like this:

1. The sign says, you'll get sick if you drink water
2. I know a few people, who got sick after drinking water in Mexico
3. I am in Mexico
4. I do not know of any one getting sick from ingesting substances other than tap water in this resort
5. I have not been sick before I drank water
6. I did get sick about half an hour after I drank water


Given these six facts above, I have concluded that there is high likelihood of the water being the cause of my sickness. I am not sure which chain of reasoning the doctor used, but apparently he has arrived at the same conclusion I did.

The hotel management seemed to agree with my conclusion as well when they offered me a free night stay as a compensation for the trouble (although, that of course could very well just mean they did not want me to go around the internet telling stories about how people get poisoned in their resort)

Quote:

I wrote a lenghty post about it. Try reading it.


I am not sure which one of your lengthy posts you are referring to.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 2:46:35 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I doubt that. I suppose, it was more like an educated guess on his part.
I also did my own deductive analysis, that went something like this:



You left out so much relevant information that, as usual, you don't even know what you don't know.

So:

Did you eat any raw fruits or vegetables? Were they washed and disinfected? Did you eat anything from a street stand? Did you, in particular, eat any raw fruits or vegetables from a street stand or a street cart or peddler? Did you eat any fish or seafood? Did you eat any meat not well done? Did you eat or drink anything at the beach, even if it was bought elsewhere? Did you eat or drink anything recycled in a container that shouldn't have been recycled, like re-filled water bottle? Did you eat any raw fish or seafood? Did you drink any milk you did not see poured from its container?

Did you exercise any care at all?

Quote:

I am not sure which one of your lengthy posts you are referring to.



I'm not surprised.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 3:19:01 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

You left out so much relevant information that, as usual, you don't even know what you don't know.


"As usual" it is actually you who does not know what I don't know (but thinks she does) ...
As for me, I am perfectly all right with not knowing with 100% certainty what exactly caused my sickness that day.

There are things in this life that are just not worth figuring out.

But if you really want to get to the bottom of this, here you are :)

Quote:


Did you eat any raw fruits or vegetables?
Were they washed and disinfected?


Yes, and I think so. I ate some fruits at lunch in the restaurant. I assume, they did wash them ... I have excluded this as the cause based on two points. There has been more than 8 hours between my eating the fruits and getting sick, lots of people ate them, including my whole family, but I was the only one to get sick that day. I was the only I know to drink water there in the evening though.


Quote:

Did you eat anything from a street stand?


No.

Quote:

Did you, in particular, eat any raw fruits or vegetables from a street stand or a street cart or peddler?


No, I never ate anything outside the resort.

Quote:

Did you eat any fish or seafood?


No.

Quote:

Did you eat any meat not well done?


Yes, I did (and always do) eat a medium rear steak. Again, I am excluding it on the basis of statistics :) I eat not well done meat all the time, before and after that time, and so does my wife, and lots of other people I know, but I only got sick when I drank that water, and not any of the other times. If mean meat was contaminated, it is likely that I would nto be the only one getting sick from it. I do know of at least three other people eating a medium rare steak at the same table. Also, as far as I know, sicknesses caused by improperly cooked meat are usually much more sever than what I had (basically a bad case of diarrhea).

Quote:

Did you eat or drink anything at the beach, even if it was bought elsewhere?


I drank lots of alcohol on the beach, yes.

Quote:

Did you eat or drink anything recycled in a container that shouldn't have been recycled, like re-filled water bottle?


Huh?

Quote:

Did you eat any raw fish or seafood?


No.

Quote:

Did you drink any milk you did not see poured from its container?


No. Who needs milk, when there is free scotch?

Quote:

Did you exercise any care at all?


Not any more or any less I usually do.



Quote:

I'm not surprised.


I knew you would not be.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13884
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 3:32:54 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

It's a public company. Any number of reasons. I may be considering buying its stock. I may be holding or considering buying stock of its competitor, a client or a supplier. I may own one of its suppliers, or a client of of of its suppliers. I may be considering subscribing to its services as a client. I may be considering subscribing for services of its competitor and looking for negotiation points. I may be thinking about starting a competing business. I may be researching the economy of a particular market sector. I may be interested in the health of the economy in general. I may simply be curious.



If you are considering buying its stock you surely may analyze it, but then you make a decision. You do not call a meeting of the board to discuss it. If you own stock of a competitor the profitibility of the first company is meaningless to you, what matters is the profit of what you own. If you are considering buying its services again the profit is none of your business. Whether they lose money or make 100% profit all that matters to you is, "do they deliver a product I want at a price I find fair?" Researching profit and stocks is fine, but again, it is no business of yours if they make whatever %, it is the stockholders. You have no say nor should you.


Quote:

No. What I am saying is that there is no real market in this business, and therefore there is no market price. The price, artificially set by insurance companies is unreasonably high, and imposes an unnecessary burden on the majority of the people. That burden can be relieved by a reform involving government providing a baseline to form the real market price, tied to the cost of service, supply and demand as it is supposed to be, and stimulate businesses to work efficiently and productively.



More "command economy" talk from you. Governmern has ZERO BUSINESS establishing prices. And, BTW, current price is set based on cost of service, supply, and demand. As a % of revenue, health insurance is not even a very lucrative business.


Quote:

Huh? Who owns it then?



The stockholders own companies. "Collectivization" has nothing to do with their ownership. Unless it is legally organized as a "collective" but that is not the case 99.99% of the time.

Quote:

Well, enlighten me then. What is in your view the key difference between firefighters or a highway department and Medicaid?
They may not be in fee for service, but they certainly do not work for free. Medicaid isn't collecting fee from its subscribers either on the other hand. If one is "socialism", then so is the other.



Firefighting and highways are governmnet services that essentially cannot be operated at a profit and makes little sense to duplicate. Why don't you give it a break with the line on "firefighters and highways" being equivalent to health care. It makes no sense.


Quote:

As for constitutionality, I am not an expert. Show me how you think they are unconstitutional if you can. I figure, if USPS is constitutional, and public schools are, if amtrack is constitutional, as well as FDIC, NIH, PBS, Medicaid and Medicare, then a government run health insurance company gotta be constitutional as well, unless you can demonstrate to me how the constitution forbids it specifically while allowing everything else. And if you are saying that all those things are unconstitutional as well ... well, then I'll just have to conclude, that you must be one of those conspiracy theorists, claiming that the evil government has been opressing us for centuries under the eye of their Masonic Order, and there isn't really much left to talk about in that case :)



The USPS is specifically outlined in the Constitution (try reading it sometime.) Public Education by the federal government IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Read the 10th Ammendment. The rest are very murky constitutionally. I'll say it again, the US Constitution is a "negative power" doccument. Meaning if it does not give the power to the government, the governmnet is prohibited from doing that activity. As it should be.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28571
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 3:40:26 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I was the only I know to drink water there in the evening though.



I visited Mexico many times when I lived in
CA. I never ate or drank anything there
except bottled beer and snacks in a bag
that was from the States. You drank the
water? You don't do that in Mexico.

"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 3:41:17 PM permalink
"Firefighting and highways are governmnet services that essentially cannot be operated at a profit and makes little sense to duplicate. Why don't you give it a break with the line on "firefighters and highways" being equivalent to health care. It makes no sense."

In the sense of public health in terms of severe, contagious disease, fire fighting and health care ARE similar. There's public good having a healthy population in general, especially stopping the spread of disease and ailment into the populous at large. Much like stopping a fire in a street or a crime spree...

Maybe that's already covered by the federal or state government. I have no idea. I am sure I shall be enlightened.

I think that's a key cultural difference. I DO see health care and fire fighting in the same bracket, and so do most Europeans, or it would seem through my experience.

The highways, not so much, but have no problem with the state taxing my car usage in order to pay for roads and road maintenance, rather than paying per kilometre to a private company... but I could see it working the other way around if you so cared to have that happen).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 3:55:45 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

If you are considering buying its stock you surely may analyze it, but then you make a decision. You do not call a meeting of the board to discuss it.


Who is talkign about meeting of the board?

Quote:

If you own stock of a competitor the profitibility of the first company is meaningless to you, what matters is the profit of what you own.


You think it's meaningless, I think it isn't. Now what?

Quote:

If you are considering buying its services again the profit is none of your business.


Shows that you don't know much about supplier chain management. Not that you should (know much about it) ...
It's just that you have to take my word for it, that any serious decision involving one business subscribing to services of another will necessarily begin with due diligence involving, among other things a very detailed financial report of the potential supplier.



Quote:

More "command economy" talk from you. Governmern has ZERO BUSINESS establishing prices.


That's your opinion, we already know it. I think you are wrong. Even when you put it in capital letters, it still does not look any more convincing. Government regulates prices on the market all the time, sometimes directly, with laws, sometimes indirectly, via various economic levers available to it.
Perhaps, in some "ideal" dream world, there is a government that does not get involved into the process of froming market prices, but in the real life they always do.


Quote:

As a % of revenue, health insurance is not even a very lucrative business.



Health insurance is not a lucrative business? What do you base your opinion on? What is your definition of a "lucrative business"?


Quote:

The stockholders own companies.
"Collectivization" has nothing to do with their ownership. Unless it is legally organized as a "collective" but that is not the case 99.99% of the time.



What is your definition of collective ownership?
The one I use is an ownership involving more than one entity.


Quote:

Firefighting and highways are governmnet services that essentially cannot be operated at a profit


Huh? Why not? Why can't they be operated at a profit?

Quote:

and makes little sense to duplicate.


Private security force makes little sense to you?

Quote:

Why don't you give it a break with the line on "firefighters and highways" being equivalent to health care. It makes no sense.


I am still not seeing the difference. "Cannot be operated at a profit" makes exactly zero sense to me. Why can't you be sold a fire protection at a modest mothly fee? There could be different levels of protection. For example, you can chose a "catastrophic coverage" only, that would be cheaper, but only involve pulling you out of the fire, not saving any of your property, pets or house guests, or you could pay more if you prefer, and have a complete coverage, etc... Or, as a different business model, the firefighters arrive promptly to put out the fire in your house, and simply send you a hefty bill afterwards. Or, perhaps, a combination of the two - you buy a firefighting insurance from a third company, that collects premiums from you, and will pay your bills after a deductible, keeping on average 4% of the premiums to itself.

"Little sense to duplicate" doesn't really make any sense either. What is different about a fire station (little sense to duplicate) compared to an ambulance company (duplicated, franchised and privately operated)?


Quote:

The rest are very murky constitutionally.


Murky or not, I think, I'll go by the Supreme Court's opinion on that over yours. When Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, I'll think it's unconstitutional. Until then, you saying things like public schools are unconstitutional etc., has the effect opposite from what you, probably, want - instead of making your point stronger, it hurts your credibility, and significantly lowers the chance of me taking seriously things that you say in the future.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 3:58:14 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

As for me, I am perfectly all right with not knowing with 100% certainty what exactly caused my sickness that day.



If you were you wouldn't be sure it was the water, would you?

Quote:

But if you really want to get to the bottom of this, here you are :)



I couldn't care less. But if you're going to blame the water then you ought to be sure that's what it was.

Quote:

Yes, and I think so. I ate some fruits at lunch in the restaurant. I assume, they did wash them



And so? Restaurants wash fruits and vegetables with tap water, not filtered water. You're supposed to either use soap on fruits you're going to peel, or soak them in a solution of tap water and chlorine or some other antibacterial agent. All too many restaurants don't bother, or son't do it well enough.

Bet you didn't know that.

Quote:

I have excluded this as the cause based on two points. There has been more than 8 hours between my eating the fruits and getting sick, lots of people ate them, including my whole family, but I was the only one to get sick that day. I was the only I know to drink water there in the evening though.



So? Different people are affected in different ways. You were not all clones of the same age and the same physical condition.

No. it's a lot easier to say "the water," or "free healthcare" and not think about it. But at least you are consistent.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13884
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 4:13:45 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Shows that you don't know much about supplier chain management. Not that you should (know much about it) ...
It's just that you have to take my word for it, that any serious decision involving one business subscribing to services of another will necessarily begin with due diligence involving, among other things a very detailed financial report of the potential supplier.



I have never once heard of a company demanding that kind of due-dilligence on a supplier. Maybe you have it backwards. If a supplier is trying to sell on credit, then the CUSTOMER will be forced to give up some info. But other than being sure the supplier will be in business, the customer's only business is the cost of the product or service.




Quote:

That's your opionn, we already know it. I think you are wrong. Even when you put it in capital letters, it still does not look any more convincing. Government regulates prices on the market all the time, sometimes directly, with laws, sometimes indirectly, via various economic levers available to it.
Perhaps, in some "ideal" dream world, there is a government that does not get involved into the process of froming market prices, but in the real life they always do.



And every time they do regulate prices, it distorts the market and causes problems. From regulated gasoline priced to rent control in New York City, it is a bad thing.


Quote:

Health insurance is not a lucrative business? What do you base your opinion on? What is your definition of a "lucrative business"?



Here is a link. Health Insurance is #86 in percent of profit margin and <4% margin. While I could define "lucrative" in several ways, neither of these would fit that definition.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp



Quote:

What is your definition of collective ownership?



Mine is ownership by a number of parties to supply a product or service at no or little profit for the benefit of the group to use that product or service for mostly or only their own personal use. eg: a "food cooperative" where people buy local food in bulk to get a better price for their own consumption.

Quote:

The one I use is an ownership involving more than one entity.



Yours is flawed as then anything other than a sole proprietorship would be a "collective." Clearly this is not the case as people do not refer to most entities with this term.


Quote:

Murky or not, I think, I'll go by the Supreme Court's opinion on that over yours. When Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, I'll think it's unconstitutional.



Get ready, you shold be saying it about June 2012 in that case.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 6:40:06 PM permalink
Here are several quotations and exchanges with a poster who, despite his protests, clearly does not like to be challenged either on his opinions or on his assertions of fact:

"Nope. Neither do you."

You snipped the citation that showed magnitudes of difference between Roth and Traditional IRA's.
-----
"Imagine an unskilled worker, making, say 15 bucks per hour. That's about $11 after taxes. 22 thousand a year, about 1800 per month. Heath insurance for the family would cost about $1300 or more. Suppose even, the spouse works too. That leaves about $2300 for the entire family's expenses for the whole month. $1000 for rent, another $1000 for utilities, auto expenses, insurance etc. That leaves $300 for food and clothing, and school supplies for the kids, and retirement, and education, and vacations, and school trips, and sports for the kids, etc, etc. Good luck with that."

Those figures may not be using the joint filing rate. The tax on $60,000 works out to $6,500, or $545 a month. Subtracting that and the $1,300 for health insurance from the family's $5,000-a-month salaries leaves $3,100 for the entire family's expenses for the whole month.
-------

Then you should explain more clearly than writing implicit sentences like these in references to taxes.

"I never wrote that "in reference to taxes". And, no, I should not explain it "more clearly". Sapienti sat.
I make a statement about FDIC, without a single mention of taxes anywhere, and it is so "unclear" to you, that you decide to assume, the statement must be in reference to taxes, and it must mean that taxes pay for FDIC."

"If that sentence was unclear to you, I think all I can do about it is to ask you withhold your comments about any of my statements in the future because apparently you cannot understand what I am talking about."

It is difficult to withhold comment when the position shifts so frequently:
"It's a federal program. What difference does it make which pocket exactly the money comes from to pay for it?
In the end of the day, it is your and mine money. Maybe, it's not taxes, maybe the banks pay for it directly, by raising prices for their services, so what?"
That reads as if you consider it taxes, no matter the source.
------
"If you bothered to read the sentence you reposted, you would see that it did not refer to insurance companies
"And that is the system that draws people from around the world to receive their health care here."


"Yes, and the word "system" referred to the hypothetical system from my example, you mistakenly thought is implemented in USA, where employers are paying for the [universal] health insurance coverage. So, it sounds like you maintain, that it is the health insurance system that draws people here to get medical procedures? You are so funny."

Suuurrreee. No one travels here from overseas for medical care. Not those potentates. Not those magnates. Not anyone who can afford the time and money.
----
As a matter of fact, they are puny. Comparing Roths to Traditionals.

"I think, you "forgot" about the other category of income that is not taxed. Why am I not surprised?"

"The interest was the only such income worth considering, because that is the only "new" money in the picture - all the other money, earned while working, is not in question, since we were discussing the topic of Nareed "free loading" while on retirement, not while working."
-----
"Not on Roth IRA. And not on income low enough to fall below the exemption."

The second sentence is meaningless, as 1099R's, to no one's surprise, are taxed at the normal rates.
-----
"Yeah, I did not know that you have to pay taxes from retirement money, but doesn't matter.
You will still be paying (somewhat) less than other people - those who are still employed, won't you? That means, they will have to carry your weight, just like today you are (arguably) carrying theirs."

Recipients of 1099R's pay income taxes at the regular rates for where they fall in the tax tables.
-----
In response to a post by a person who pays taxes: "someday, you'll retire, and stop paying taxes forever.."
and
"The taxes you pay on your retirement income do not count in the context of that discussion, since the money you've earned while you were working did not get taxed."

"Nareed was talking about taxes on the interest that the retirement account generates, not on distributions. Interest on IRA, either Roth or traditional, is not taxed, only distributions are. So, technically, I was correct saying that the income in question would not be taxed without any additional clarification. The interest was the only such income worth considering, because that is the only "new" money in the picture."

"What I said is if you have traditional IRA, and are paying taxes on the retirement income it generates for you, these are taxes you have not paid while working, not some "new" taxes you are paying now because you are such a valuable member of society. The interest was the only such income worth considering, because that is the only "new" money in the picture - all the other money, earned while working, is not in question."

That is not accurate. The taxes on the RMD's include levies on dividends and capital gains, which can be the far larger part of the IRA, whether Roth or Traditional, than interest.
-------
Says someone who does not understand what Roth IRA's and erroneously posts their taxation rules.

"There you go again. I guess, I was "unclear" somewhere again :)"

Nope. The statement about taxes on retirement income was wrong.
----
You wrote, "you have accused me of being (maliciously?) inconsistent by pretending you could not do simple math, neglected to apologize, or even acknowledge your mistake," without giving so much as a hint about your reference.
----
In response to a post about what pays for the FDIC "It's a federal program. What difference does it make which pocket exactly the money comes from to pay for it?"
----
Bad example. And it's backward. It's not "Government entering the market." This specific case is the other way around, and FedEx had to make an airtight legal case to break the postal monopoly. As a matter of fact, the US Postal Service has become so downtrodden that it now contracts with FedEx and UPS for services.

"It's Nareed's example, not mine, so if it is bad (I don't quite see why), it's not my fault :) I don't see how it matters who entered first."

But it was you who wrote: "Yes, Fedex provides better services in certain areas, and some people prefer to pay for it even though it is more expensive. So what?
That actually makes exactly my point. Government entering the market does not have to be the end of competition and the end of choice for consumer."

The statement in the FedEx case about "Government entering the market" is a gross historical error that you tried to slide over.

-----
When asked what your figure of uncovered people signified, "your response was that you didn't know whether the figure is 35 million, 50 million or 85 million."

"No, my response was that 50 million were uninsured long term, and 36.7 million short term, for the total of 86.7 million."

"This is Census data. I wold guess it excludes the illegals, but you never know nowadays :)
Anyway, I did not mean that number as a statement of fact."

Seen overall, the reliability of the posts is clear.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 7:34:59 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Here are several quotations and exchanges with a poster who, despite his protests, clearly does not like to be challenged either on his opinions or on his assertions of fact:

"Nope. Neither do you."

You snipped the citation that showed magnitudes of difference between Roth and Traditional IRA's.
-----
"Imagine an unskilled worker, making, say 15 bucks per hour. That's about $11 after taxes. 22 thousand a year, about 1800 per month. Heath insurance for the family would cost about $1300 or more. Suppose even, the spouse works too. That leaves about $2300 for the entire family's expenses for the whole month. $1000 for rent, another $1000 for utilities, auto expenses, insurance etc. That leaves $300 for food and clothing, and school supplies for the kids, and retirement, and education, and vacations, and school trips, and sports for the kids, etc, etc. Good luck with that."

Those figures may not be using the joint filing rate. The tax on $60,000 works out to $6,500, or $545 a month. Subtracting that and the $1,300 for health insurance from the family's $5,000-a-month salaries leaves $3,100 for the entire family's expenses for the whole month.
-------



It took you

Quote: SanchoPanza

Then you should explain more clearly than writing implicit sentences like these in references to taxes.

"I never wrote that "in reference to taxes". And, no, I should not explain it "more clearly". Sapienti sat.
I make a statement about FDIC, without a single mention of taxes anywhere, and it is so "unclear" to you, that you decide to assume, the statement must be in reference to taxes, and it must mean that taxes pay for FDIC."

"If that sentence was unclear to you, I think all I can do about it is to ask you withhold your comments about any of my statements in the future because apparently you cannot understand what I am talking about."

It is difficult to withhold comment when the position shifts so frequently:
"It's a federal program. What difference does it make which pocket exactly the money comes from to pay for it?
In the end of the day, it is your and mine money. Maybe, it's not taxes, maybe the banks pay for it directly, by raising prices for their services, so what?"
That reads as if you consider it taxes, no matter the source.
------



this long

Quote: SanchoPanza

"If you bothered to read the sentence you reposted, you would see that it did not refer to insurance companies
"And that is the system that draws people from around the world to receive their health care here."


"Yes, and the word "system" referred to the hypothetical system from my example, you mistakenly thought is implemented in USA, where employers are paying for the [universal] health insurance coverage. So, it sounds like you maintain, that it is the health insurance system that draws people here to get medical procedures? You are so funny."

Suuurrreee. No one travels here from overseas for medical care. Not those potentates. Not those magnates. Not anyone who can afford the time and money.
----



to discern

Quote: SanchoPanza

As a matter of fact, they are puny. Comparing Roths to Traditionals.

"I think, you "forgot" about the other category of income that is not taxed. Why am I not surprised?"

"The interest was the only such income worth considering, because that is the only "new" money in the picture - all the other money, earned while working, is not in question, since we were discussing the topic of Nareed "free loading" while on retirement, not while working."
-----



that? Maybe

Quote: SanchoPanza

"Not on Roth IRA. And not on income low enough to fall below the exemption."

The second sentence is meaningless, as 1099R's, to no one's surprise, are taxed at the normal rates.
-----



he's right

Quote: SanchoPanza

"Yeah, I did not know that you have to pay taxes from retirement money, but doesn't matter.
You will still be paying (somewhat) less than other people - those who are still employed, won't you? That means, they will have to carry your weight, just like today you are (arguably) carrying theirs."

Recipients of 1099R's pay income taxes at the regular rates for where they fall in the tax tables.
-----



about you

Quote: SanchoPanza

In response to a post by a person who pays taxes: "someday, you'll retire, and stop paying taxes forever.."
and
"The taxes you pay on your retirement income do not count in the context of that discussion, since the money you've earned while you were working did not get taxed."

"Nareed was talking about taxes on the interest that the retirement account generates, not on distributions. Interest on IRA, either Roth or traditional, is not taxed, only distributions are. So, technically, I was correct saying that the income in question would not be taxed without any additional clarification. The interest was the only such income worth considering, because that is the only "new" money in the picture."

"What I said is if you have traditional IRA, and are paying taxes on the retirement income it generates for you, these are taxes you have not paid while working, not some "new" taxes you are paying now because you are such a valuable member of society. The interest was the only such income worth considering, because that is the only "new" money in the picture - all the other money, earned while working, is not in question."

That is not accurate. The taxes on the RMD's include levies on dividends and capital gains, which can be the far larger part of the IRA, whether Roth or Traditional, than interest.
-------



and me

Quote: SanchoPanza

Says someone who does not understand what Roth IRA's and erroneously posts their taxation rules.

"There you go again. I guess, I was "unclear" somewhere again :)"

Nope. The statement about taxes on retirement income was wrong.
----



and everyone

Quote: SanchoPanza

You wrote, "you have accused me of being (maliciously?) inconsistent by pretending you could not do simple math, neglected to apologize, or even acknowledge your mistake," without giving so much as a hint about your reference.
----



else but

Quote: SanchoPanza

In response to a post about what pays for the FDIC "It's a federal program. What difference does it make which pocket exactly the money comes from to pay for it?"
----



him being

Quote: SanchoPanza

Bad example. And it's backward. It's not "Government entering the market." This specific case is the other way around, and FedEx had to make an airtight legal case to break the postal monopoly. As a matter of fact, the US Postal Service has become so downtrodden that it now contracts with FedEx and UPS for services.

"It's Nareed's example, not mine, so if it is bad (I don't quite see why), it's not my fault :) I don't see how it matters who entered first."

But it was you who wrote: "Yes, Fedex provides better services in certain areas, and some people prefer to pay for it even though it is more expensive. So what?
That actually makes exactly my point. Government entering the market does not have to be the end of competition and the end of choice for consumer."

The statement in the FedEx case about "Government entering the market" is a gross historical error that you tried to slide over.

-----



stupid idiots.

Quote: SanchoPanza

When asked what your figure of uncovered people signified, "your response was that you didn't know whether the figure is 35 million, 50 million or 85 million."

"No, my response was that 50 million were uninsured long term, and 36.7 million short term, for the total of 86.7 million."

"This is Census data. I wold guess it excludes the illegals, but you never know nowadays :)
Anyway, I did not mean that number as a statement of fact."

Seen overall, the reliability of the posts is clear.



What's that old saying ... don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools or you will become as foolish as they are, or something.

His and another guy's "technique" of hyper-parsing is just a way of adding confusion, which of course serves a fool's end. If you become as foolish, you'll end up getting down into hyper-detail that doesn't matter to the original point and takes you a zillion miles away from it. It's a way for people who think they're smart to sound smart to themselves and never "lose" a discussion, especially when they can't put together a cogent point.

It may as well be one of Alinsky's rules: if you can't be cogent or make good points without admitting your stance is weak, thou shalt hyper-parse, obfuscate, and change the discussion.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 7:47:03 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

It may as well be one of Alinsky's rules: if you can't be cogent or make good points without admitting your stance is weak, thou shalt hyper-parse, obfuscate, and change the discussion.


Don't forget the ever colorful ad hominem attacks filled with vulgarities and infantile insults.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 7:49:06 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Don't forget the ever colorful ad hominem attacks filled with vulgarities and infantile insults.



Heh!

Cue the personal attack, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Prediction ... he'll say I was attacking HIM when, in fact, I didn't mention anybody. Only a "guilty conscience" will respond.
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 8:19:45 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

If you were you wouldn't be sure it was the water, would you?



I am sure enough. "Enough" for me is not 100% in this case.



Quote:

I couldn't care less. But if you're going to blame the water then you ought to be sure that's what it was.


Why? So that I don't hurt water's feelings?



Quote:

And so? Restaurants wash fruits and vegetables with tap water, not filtered water. You're supposed to either use soap on fruits you're going to peel, or soak them in a solution of tap water and chlorine or some other antibacterial agent. All too many restaurants don't bother, or son't do it well enough.


Call me a bigot again if you want, but I am used to living in civilized world. I don't take soap with me to restaurants to wash their fruit.
If you are telling me it is a sensible thing to do when you are in Mexico, I think I am going to have to pick another vacation destination.
I can (barely) put up with undrinkable tap water. But washing restaurant served dishes with your own soap in a five star resort is a bit too much. This is where I have to draw the line I am afraid.

Quote:

Bet you didn't know that.


Damn right, I did not (and still do not :))
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 8:47:24 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Call me a bigot again if you want, but I am used to living in civilized world. I don't take soap with me to restaurants to wash their fruit.



Don't be obtuse. It's unbecoming. Whan I say "you're supposed to..." I don't mean you in particular.

Restaurants wash their fruits and vegetables, but sometimes not very well. They tend to pay more attention to vegetables than to fruits, because they assume the fruit will be cooked, or used in pies or otherwise processed. It's not a good idea to eat raw fruit at a restaurant anywhere.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 8:47:26 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I have never once heard of a company demanding that kind of due-dilligence on a supplier.


Maybe, that's because you have not been working much in supplier chain management. It is quite a routine in that world.

Quote:

If a supplier is trying to sell on credit, then the CUSTOMER will be forced to give up some info.


If we are talking about public companies, nobody needs to give up any info. It is all publicly available.
But even a private supplier trying to land a large contract with a serious customer will provide all the info they request voluntarily (not "be forced to give it up"), as part of due diligence.This is less common - large customers prefer to deal with public suppliers, specifically because of their financial info being readily available - but it does happen either way.




Quote:

And every time they do regulate prices, it distorts the market and causes problems.



I don't know about the problems and "every time" specifically, it definitely does distort the market, if it did not there would not be any point in doing it in the first place.
That's not the point though. I was responding to your statement that it is not government's job to regulate the markets, which is, obviously not true. It may not be government's job in your opinion, but as the matter of fact, every government in the world does this job all the time.


Quote:


Here is a link. Health Insurance is #86 in percent of profit margin and <4% margin. While I could define "lucrative" in several ways, neither of these would fit that definition.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp



Well, thank you for the link.
I am sure, you do not need me to explain to you how profit margins can be misleading, and how there are other metrics to judge profitability.
The amount of claims that goes through an insurance company is tremendous. 4% of 300 billion dollars is about 12 billion (that is how much profit have five largest health insurance companies made in 2009 - about 60% increase since 2007, while the rest of the economy was plummeting).



Quote:

Mine is ownership by a number of parties to supply a product or service at no or little profit for the benefit of the group to use that product or service for mostly or only their own personal use. eg: a "food cooperative" where people buy local food in bulk to get a better price for their own consumption.

Yours is flawed as then anything other than a sole proprietorship would be a "collective." Clearly this is not the case as people do not refer to most entities with this term.



Sure they do. From your favorite dictionary.com: "a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group."
Nothing about profits here, or how the product is to be used.
So, just to make sure, under your definition, Ford is not collectively owned by its shareholders, right? How is it owned by them then? Individually?


Quote:

Get ready, you shold be saying it about June 2012 in that case.


I should be saying what about June?


You did not respond about firefighters. Does that mean you agree with me now, they are "socialism" under your definition, and there is not substantial difference between them and, say, an abulance service?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12165
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 8:54:22 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

It's not a good idea to eat raw fruit at a restaurant anywhere.



I was waiting outside a buffet here once, and a guy walked out, put both hands over his mouth and started vomiting through his fingers. Quite a sight. And ruined my appetite to boot.

Maybe he ate the fruit.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 8:59:36 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Don't be obtuse. It's unbecoming. Whan I say "you're supposed to..." I don't mean you in particular.


You said, that restaurants wash their fruits with tap water, and I am supposed to wash them with soaps. I took that opposition "restaurants vs myself" to mean that the restaurants are not doing the right thing, and it would not be wise to eat fruit they offer.

Quote:

Restaurants wash their fruits and vegetables, but sometimes not very well. They tend to pay more attention to vegetables than to fruits, because they assume the fruit will be cooked, or used in pies or otherwise processed. It's not a good idea to eat raw fruit at a restaurant anywhere.


Well, call me naive, but I'll in turn call you paranoid. I'll defer to your expertise about Mexican restaurants, but I will stay fairly confident about eating raw fruit (or anything else for that matter) offered in restaurants here, and in other civilized countries.
In any event, there was no sign posted there that to the effect that you should not eat fruit, while the signs about tap water were really hard to miss. Based on that (and on the fact that the whole resort ate the fruit, and that eight hours have passed since I ate it, and the doctor said so) I think, I'll keep my opinion regarding water being the cause of my sickness.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 6th, 2011 at 9:06:25 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Well, call me naive, but I'll in turn call you paranoid. I'll defer to your expertise about Mexican restaurants, but I will stay fairly confident about eating raw fruit (or anything else for that matter) offered in restaurants here, and in other civilized countries.



Of course no one has ever gotten ill from eating at a restaurant in America. Of course not. It's only in uncivilized countries.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 6th, 2011 at 9:22:25 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Of course no one has ever gotten ill from eating at a restaurant in America. Of course not. It's only in uncivilized countries.


Accidents happen everywhere. And not just in restaurants, people sometimes get ill eating at home because the food they bought in a supermarket was contaminated. But those are accidents, freak ocurrences, something you don't expect to happen or plan for.
It would never occur to me I should never eat chicken again, because of the recent news of a few salmonella cases in Oklahoma (or somewhere around there, I forget).
At some point, when a frequency of accidents reaches a certain level, it becomes prudent to avoid the whole thing, like you suggested. I am pretty sure, American restaurants are not there yet. Frankly, I feel pretty confident saying the same about Mexican ones too, at least those inside major respectable resorts. Even my incident with tap water, I consider to be an accident rather than a rule (although, I'll admit, I do always ask for a bottle when in Mexico after that day :)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
  • Jump to: