Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why not have the government collect all fruits of production, and then distribute it all back to the people in an equitable manner?

I predict that it would end up costing 50% more that way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why not have the government collect all fruits of production, and then distribute it all back to the people in an equitable manner?
Confidential to SAM
did I misunderstand Ty's post?

[CONFIDENTIAL TO HANK]If you want to do the confidential thing, you have to use the special tags.[/CONFIDENTIAL TO HANK]

Can we review the bidding? Not me said, let's require everyone to get at least a certain level of catastrophic coverage, and those who really can't pay for it will get vouchers. My question: Why not just provide it to everyone, and pay for it with tax dollars? What's the difference? Presumably you want competition among the providers, and it's not a sector of the industry with robust competition right now because people aren't choosing to pay for that coverage much. So you set up different government providers that will compete with each other.

eta:
[SUBTEXT]We already provide a certain amount of baseline coverage to everyone, in that you won't get turned away from an ER or dismissed from a hospital if you are in medical trouble of certain types. The rest of us pay for this now, one way or another. Not me's intuition is, hey, let's make sure that people have some coverage so they can't be free riders. And mine is, hey, the government does a pretty good job of collecting taxes, so let's solve this problem by collecting taxes, rather than finding some way to enforce new requirements to get insurance (the US Attorneys' offices are going to prosecute you for this?).[/SUBTEXT]

edited to add subtext

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It would be so much more efficient to just force everyone to have catastrophic coverage than to take care of these things after the fact.

Club will tell you that government isn't always efficient when it tries to force people to do things they don't want to do.

[Not Me]

Alleged Qaeda Letter Threatens U.S. Over Yassin Death

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Islamist Web site has published a statement purporting to come from an al Qaeda-linked group vowing revenge on the United States and its allies over Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

"We tell Palestinians that Sheikh Yassin's blood was not spilt in vain and call on all legions of Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades to avenge him by attacking the tyrant of the age, America, and its allies," said the statement by Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades carried by the Al Ansar forum Web site on Monday.

It was also published by another Islamist Web site called Islammemo, which said the letter was received by email and sent to several Arab media outlets.

The group, which aligns itself to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, had claimed this month's train bombings in Spain. There was no means of verifying the statement.

"We tell fighters in Palestine, especially Hamas and Jihad, that your real enemy is the tyrant of the age, America, because Sheikh Yassin was killed by American money, weapons and political and media support," the statement said.

"Let us unite to strike this Jewish-crusader snake, this despotic enemy...the Jews can be found in every inch of the world and they are the ones who support the Jews of the Zionist entity in Palestine through money and in the media," it said.

Washington has denied suggestions by Hamas that it gave Israel the green light for Yassin's assassination or that it had advance warning.

The purported Qaeda statement urged Palestinians not to follow Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who it said was trying to "sell Palestine" in exchange for peace.

The group is named after Mohammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide from Egypt who was killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in late 2001.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No, I usually just say that he had a "graduate degree in SCIENCE". Res ispa loquitur.

S_A_M

P.S. You do realize that is a quote from you (including capitals)?

it was bachelor's degree. Your pop culture knowledge caused you to read it as graduate. I, raised by poor yet polite folk, would never say you have a reading comprehension problem because of this error.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Club will tell you that government isn't always efficient when it tries to force people to do things they don't want to do.

It certainly won't solve the problems of the uninsured, but it is relatively easy to implement compared to socializing the healthcare system, leaves competition intact, and will help some of the problems.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Another knee-slapper from Hank! How are we solving the healthcare issue in your ideal world? Or is there not a problem with the status quo in your ideal world? Since we are talking about your ideal world and not whether it is politically feasible in the current environment, "there is no problem with the status quo" is a perfectly fine answer. However, making over the world so that everyone in the US has plenty of money etc. because they all made all the right choices is not really a good answer because, well, because that's just dull.

My god. You bitch about boring repetitive sludge, and you post this shit? Surely we've done this one to death. Go back about 1 month and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 2 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 3 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 4 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. etc.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Bravo! Letter-perfect rendition. Rove would be proud.

Ok then, how about because we would turn our health care system into a system with all the problems of our public school system.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It certainly won't solve the problems of the uninsured, but it is relatively easy to implement compared to socializing the healthcare system, leaves competition intack, and will help some of the problems.

Who's talking about socializing the healthcare system? I'm just talking about providing catastrophic coverage -- something private parties aren't doing well right now, judging from the numbers of people who opt to go without. (See the subtext of my post -- it's below the text.)

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My god. You bitch about boring repetitive sludge, and you post this shit? Surely we've done this one to death. Go back about 1 month and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 2 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 3 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 4 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. etc.

But how did you feel about it 5 months ago? Maybe you should enlighten us all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My god. You bitch about boring repetitive sludge, and you post this shit? Surely we've done this one to death. Go back about 1 month and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 2 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 3 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 4 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. etc.

I bet you say that to all your wives.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My god. You bitch about boring repetitive sludge, and you post this shit? Surely we've done this one to death. Go back about 1 month and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 2 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 3 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 4 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. etc.

OK, sorry. I hate going back, so I will just continue to wonder.

You seem a bit . . . irritable. Might I suggest a snack?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In theory you are right. In theory, communism works. In theory.

Hey! Just like free market economics!! Both inject a characteristic into human nature that doesn't exist in reality! The former: a nondesire for wealth and property! The latter: rational decision-making!!

YAY!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My god. You bitch about boring repetitive sludge, and you post this shit? Surely we've done this one to death. Go back about 1 month and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 2 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 3 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. Or you can go back about 4 months and you can read how I feel about the exact question you ask. etc.

Quoting this again, even though ncs and Ty did too, just because it looks so much cooler with the margins in places they are for quotes than it does with the margins in the places they are for actual posts.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Hey! Just like free market economics!! Both inject a characteristic into human nature that doesn't exist in reality! The former: a nondesire for wealth and property! The latter: rational decision-making!!

YAY!

I think I love you.*

*I also love SAM, but he is taken.