Frank

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 4:59:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:54:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/...c-health-care/

That article was from 2009. Notice the dates on the reader comments.
You're right that I didn't bother digging to find the most recent poll.
I'd welcome one if you have a link.

OTOH, we've probably had periodic arguments about this since at least
2009. I don't think the Affordable Care Act or anything else changed
Canadians' minds very much.

Again you show that you know not of what you speak. The opinions of 100,000 Canadians that are all in their 20's and 30's doesn't mean **** when the system cannot handle the truly ill. The waiting times for serious procedures in Canada is often longer than their expected lifespan with that condition.. The ignorance and stupidity of you socialists is sickening if you want to know the truth. "They cured my appendicitis" with a simple operation doesn't mean beans to a person with Polycythemia Vera.

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2021 20:53:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 1 May 2021 19:59:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 7:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:54:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/...c-health-care/

That article was from 2009. Notice the dates on the reader comments.

You're right that I didn't bother digging to find the most recent poll.
I'd welcome one if you have a link.

I burned about 45 mins and found absolutely nothing new the last
decade. Plenty of polls and surveys between 2003 and 2009, then
nothing. The Wikipedia article on the topic cites surveys from 2003
and two from 2009:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Public_opinion
The 3rd part offered an opinion of a 2020 PBS article mention "...75%
of Canadians were proud of their health-care system", "Canadians "feel
grateful for what they have."", and "always relieved that at least
[our healthcare system] not the American system." Predictably, no
mention of whether Canadians had any interest in privatizing their
system. Seems rather odd that one persons opinion would be packaged
as public opinion or survey results.

What happened is that no sane company or agency will fund a public
survey or study without first knowing the expected results in advance.
Apparently, that didn't happen in the 2009 Nanos poll which I found to
be statistically lacking. Someone goofed big time. Obviously, parts
of the medical establishment wanted a privatized system probably
because they wanted to set prices and control services. Since it was
suspected that the public MIGHT not support privatization, the easiest
thing to do is avoid asking the public and simply ask the experts for
what they think the public might want. So, no polls or surveys after
2009. The government had it easiest. Do nothing and the present
system remains in place.

OTOH, we've probably had periodic arguments about this since at least
2009. I don't think the Affordable Care Act or anything else changed
Canadians' minds very much.

I do recall some discussion of the matter. I don't recall if I was
involved. Probably not because I know little about the Canadian
system. While I have opinions about the US system, I normally do not
present them for target practice in public forums because I haven't
researched them very well and would have difficulty demonstrating that
my ideas are medically sound and financially sustainable.

Re surveys. I had a good friend who had a financial analysis business
here in Bangkok. He primarily did studies to, for example, determine
whether selling refrigerators "up country" on a pay as you go basis as
sewing machines were being sold, was a good scheme, or, whether a
copper refining project in S.W. Thailand was a good idea.
In order to accomplish these studies he quite often surveys to
determine one thing or another.

He once told me "tell me what you want the survey to prove and I'll
design a survey to prove it". The comment was in reference to a
Bangkok Post newspaper survey to demonstrate something or another. The
Paper announced that they had surveyed 1,500 individuals in Bangkok
and XX percent preferred thus-in-such..... in a city of some 10
million inhabitants :-)

It’s not cast in stone, but theoretically, if you can sample randomly, you
can determine the average of a population from around 30 samples with
reasonable accuracy, so sampling 1500 people isn’t bad (especially for
something as “important� as a newspaper survey).

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 8:49:52 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2021 20:53:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 1 May 2021 19:59:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 7:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:54:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/...c-health-care/

That article was from 2009. Notice the dates on the reader comments.

You're right that I didn't bother digging to find the most recent poll.
I'd welcome one if you have a link.

I burned about 45 mins and found absolutely nothing new the last
decade. Plenty of polls and surveys between 2003 and 2009, then
nothing. The Wikipedia article on the topic cites surveys from 2003
and two from 2009:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Public_opinion
The 3rd part offered an opinion of a 2020 PBS article mention "...75%
of Canadians were proud of their health-care system", "Canadians "feel
grateful for what they have."", and "always relieved that at least
[our healthcare system] not the American system." Predictably, no
mention of whether Canadians had any interest in privatizing their
system. Seems rather odd that one persons opinion would be packaged
as public opinion or survey results.

What happened is that no sane company or agency will fund a public
survey or study without first knowing the expected results in advance.
Apparently, that didn't happen in the 2009 Nanos poll which I found to
be statistically lacking. Someone goofed big time. Obviously, parts
of the medical establishment wanted a privatized system probably
because they wanted to set prices and control services. Since it was
suspected that the public MIGHT not support privatization, the easiest
thing to do is avoid asking the public and simply ask the experts for
what they think the public might want. So, no polls or surveys after
2009. The government had it easiest. Do nothing and the present
system remains in place.

OTOH, we've probably had periodic arguments about this since at least
2009. I don't think the Affordable Care Act or anything else changed
Canadians' minds very much.

I do recall some discussion of the matter. I don't recall if I was
involved. Probably not because I know little about the Canadian
system. While I have opinions about the US system, I normally do not
present them for target practice in public forums because I haven't
researched them very well and would have difficulty demonstrating that
my ideas are medically sound and financially sustainable.

Re surveys. I had a good friend who had a financial analysis business
here in Bangkok. He primarily did studies to, for example, determine
whether selling refrigerators "up country" on a pay as you go basis as
sewing machines were being sold, was a good scheme, or, whether a
copper refining project in S.W. Thailand was a good idea.
In order to accomplish these studies he quite often surveys to
determine one thing or another.

He once told me "tell me what you want the survey to prove and I'll
design a survey to prove it". The comment was in reference to a
Bangkok Post newspaper survey to demonstrate something or another. The
Paper announced that they had surveyed 1,500 individuals in Bangkok
and XX percent preferred thus-in-such..... in a city of some 10
million inhabitants :-)
It’s not cast in stone, but theoretically, if you can sample randomly, you
can determine the average of a population from around 30 samples with
reasonable accuracy, so sampling 1500 people isn’t bad (especially for
something as “important� as a newspaper survey).
Ralph, it simply doesn't work that way. A 20 year old that can go into his socialized clinic and get the little blue pill thinks that socialized medicine is wonderful. The people who are REALLY sick do not and they are very difficult to find in the poll which makes it worthless.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 4:59:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:54:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/...c-health-care/

That article was from 2009. Notice the dates on the reader comments.
You're right that I didn't bother digging to find the most recent poll.
I'd welcome one if you have a link.

OTOH, we've probably had periodic arguments about this since at least
2009. I don't think the Affordable Care Act or anything else changed
Canadians' minds very much.

Again you show that you know not of what you speak. The opinions
of 100,000 Canadians that are all in their 20's and 30's doesn't
mean **** when the system cannot handle the truly ill.

Did you read the original article?
https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/new-poll-shows-canadians-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/
The article mentioned 1001 Canadians, not 100,000. The original
survey made no mention of the respondents age distribution. Filtering
respondents by age was certainly possible, but was more likely to have
been by voting age and above, not "20's and 30's". Please cease
inventing "facts".



--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 5/2/2021 8:49 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2021 20:53:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 1 May 2021 19:59:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 7:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:54:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/...c-health-care/

That article was from 2009. Notice the dates on the reader comments.

You're right that I didn't bother digging to find the most recent poll.
I'd welcome one if you have a link.

I burned about 45 mins and found absolutely nothing new the last
decade. Plenty of polls and surveys between 2003 and 2009, then
nothing. The Wikipedia article on the topic cites surveys from 2003
and two from 2009:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Public_opinion
The 3rd part offered an opinion of a 2020 PBS article mention "...75%
of Canadians were proud of their health-care system", "Canadians "feel
grateful for what they have."", and "always relieved that at least
[our healthcare system] not the American system." Predictably, no
mention of whether Canadians had any interest in privatizing their
system. Seems rather odd that one persons opinion would be packaged
as public opinion or survey results.

What happened is that no sane company or agency will fund a public
survey or study without first knowing the expected results in advance.
Apparently, that didn't happen in the 2009 Nanos poll which I found to
be statistically lacking. Someone goofed big time. Obviously, parts
of the medical establishment wanted a privatized system probably
because they wanted to set prices and control services. Since it was
suspected that the public MIGHT not support privatization, the easiest
thing to do is avoid asking the public and simply ask the experts for
what they think the public might want. So, no polls or surveys after
2009. The government had it easiest. Do nothing and the present
system remains in place.

OTOH, we've probably had periodic arguments about this since at least
2009. I don't think the Affordable Care Act or anything else changed
Canadians' minds very much.

I do recall some discussion of the matter. I don't recall if I was
involved. Probably not because I know little about the Canadian
system. While I have opinions about the US system, I normally do not
present them for target practice in public forums because I haven't
researched them very well and would have difficulty demonstrating that
my ideas are medically sound and financially sustainable.

Re surveys. I had a good friend who had a financial analysis business
here in Bangkok. He primarily did studies to, for example, determine
whether selling refrigerators "up country" on a pay as you go basis as
sewing machines were being sold, was a good scheme, or, whether a
copper refining project in S.W. Thailand was a good idea.
In order to accomplish these studies he quite often surveys to
determine one thing or another.

He once told me "tell me what you want the survey to prove and I'll
design a survey to prove it". The comment was in reference to a
Bangkok Post newspaper survey to demonstrate something or another. The
Paper announced that they had surveyed 1,500 individuals in Bangkok
and XX percent preferred thus-in-such..... in a city of some 10
million inhabitants :-)

It’s not cast in stone, but theoretically, if you can sample randomly, you
can determine the average of a population from around 30 samples with
reasonable accuracy, so sampling 1500 people isn’t bad (especially for
something as “important� as a newspaper survey).

Well, it's pretty close to cast in stone - i.e. mathematically provable
- that with a genuine simple random sample of 30 you can get a pretty
good estimate of the average of most population distributions. And you
can get solid estimates of the likely estimation error - which will be
small.

The hard part is getting a genuine simple random sample - wherein
everyone in the population has an equal chance of being selected, and
for which the selection method is akin to putting everyone's name in a
hat, mixing well, and drawing w/o peeking.

Low response rates - among other things - in modern polling wreak havoc
on polling, even when the polls are designed well.

Mark J.

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-7, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 8:49 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2021 20:53:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 1 May 2021 19:59:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 7:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:54:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/...c-health-care/

That article was from 2009. Notice the dates on the reader comments..

You're right that I didn't bother digging to find the most recent poll.
I'd welcome one if you have a link.

I burned about 45 mins and found absolutely nothing new the last
decade. Plenty of polls and surveys between 2003 and 2009, then
nothing. The Wikipedia article on the topic cites surveys from 2003
and two from 2009:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Public_opinion
The 3rd part offered an opinion of a 2020 PBS article mention "...75%
of Canadians were proud of their health-care system", "Canadians "feel
grateful for what they have."", and "always relieved that at least
[our healthcare system] not the American system." Predictably, no
mention of whether Canadians had any interest in privatizing their
system. Seems rather odd that one persons opinion would be packaged
as public opinion or survey results.

What happened is that no sane company or agency will fund a public
survey or study without first knowing the expected results in advance..
Apparently, that didn't happen in the 2009 Nanos poll which I found to
be statistically lacking. Someone goofed big time. Obviously, parts
of the medical establishment wanted a privatized system probably
because they wanted to set prices and control services. Since it was
suspected that the public MIGHT not support privatization, the easiest
thing to do is avoid asking the public and simply ask the experts for
what they think the public might want. So, no polls or surveys after
2009. The government had it easiest. Do nothing and the present
system remains in place.

OTOH, we've probably had periodic arguments about this since at least
2009. I don't think the Affordable Care Act or anything else changed
Canadians' minds very much.

I do recall some discussion of the matter. I don't recall if I was
involved. Probably not because I know little about the Canadian
system. While I have opinions about the US system, I normally do not
present them for target practice in public forums because I haven't
researched them very well and would have difficulty demonstrating that
my ideas are medically sound and financially sustainable.

Re surveys. I had a good friend who had a financial analysis business
here in Bangkok. He primarily did studies to, for example, determine
whether selling refrigerators "up country" on a pay as you go basis as
sewing machines were being sold, was a good scheme, or, whether a
copper refining project in S.W. Thailand was a good idea.
In order to accomplish these studies he quite often surveys to
determine one thing or another.

He once told me "tell me what you want the survey to prove and I'll
design a survey to prove it". The comment was in reference to a
Bangkok Post newspaper survey to demonstrate something or another. The
Paper announced that they had surveyed 1,500 individuals in Bangkok
and XX percent preferred thus-in-such..... in a city of some 10
million inhabitants :-)

It’s not cast in stone, but theoretically, if you can sample randomly, you
can determine the average of a population from around 30 samples with
reasonable accuracy, so sampling 1500 people isn’t bad (especially for
something as “important� as a newspaper survey).
Well, it's pretty close to cast in stone - i.e. mathematically provable
- that with a genuine simple random sample of 30 you can get a pretty
good estimate of the average of most population distributions. And you
can get solid estimates of the likely estimation error - which will be
small.

The hard part is getting a genuine simple random sample - wherein
everyone in the population has an equal chance of being selected, and
for which the selection method is akin to putting everyone's name in a
hat, mixing well, and drawing w/o peeking.

Low response rates - among other things - in modern polling wreak havoc
on polling, even when the polls are designed well.

Mark - let me repeat hopefully in a manner in which you would understand my thinking: NO poll is accurate if it is composed of the people that need the health care the least and hence are happy with anything they get for free.. Even if instead of for free they are paying out the snoot for very poor service which they do not understand because bandaging a skinned knee isn't really medicine. And yet they are paying for the bandaging of 10 million skinned knees that could just as well have been done in their own home out of the supplies in any household medicine cabinet.

On 5/1/2021 9:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 20:05:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 10:24:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/30/2021 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021

wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a
fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for
someone
else's medical expenses.Â* After 66, I became a recipient
and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might
benefit me.

I've never complained about paying taxes - except, perhaps,
the portion that go toward maintaining a military that's
larger than the next 20 nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or whatever
- it astounds me that there are people who love the current
U.S. system. It has often exorbitant hospital costs that are
usually hidden from the consumer until too late, it
de-emphasizes preventive care, uses expensive emergency
rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured, it
features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and
multitudes of lawyers on each side to argue over what they
mean, it prevents real bidding or negotiation on many
medicines and procedures, it obscenely enriches its
stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?



Dear Frank-

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/defense.jpg

Everyone decries that the Pentagon wastes half it budget. Few agree with
me that every other Department wastes all of theirs.

Yep. Our military has prevented Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and a
gaggle of Middle Eastern states from invading us. Well, except for that
incident in 2001...

OTOH, the militaries of Britain, France, Switzerland, Japan, Norway,
Russia, China, North Korea and more have all been similarly successful
while spending SO much less.

See

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tary-spending/


or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

Interesting math exercise: Start adding expenditures from #2 on down.
See how many nations you have to total to match the U.S. expenditure.

As with medicine, it seems others get as good or better results with FAR
less expense.

Didn't Eisenhower have something to say about that?

Terrible! Terrible! But, of course a major part of the Defense Budget
is spent in the U.S. and actually benefits the U.S. economy... In
California, $49 billion spent, Virginia, $46.2 billion, Texas, $37.7
billion, and so on. In 2015 some 154 billion went for military
personnel, for example.

I understand. We have an air base near me that every politician is
always fighting to protect because of its benefits to the local economy
- although I don't think they're really all that great.

But OTOH, by that standard, any money the Feds spend can be said to be
beneficial. What's an aircraft carrier cost? Or the latest super war
plane? Taxes pay for a lot of salaries and materials to build those
things, but when they're built, they actually do very little that's
productive. They may make some enemies nervous, but I'm not convinced
the increase in nervousness from yet another carrier is worth the price.

What if that money were spent on (say) solar panels? Or small modular
nuclear reactors? Or repairing bridges? Better internet for people who
practically can't connect now? Job training for laid-off coal miners? I
think there are many places the money would do more good.

It may be that the money could be spent in different ways but in 2019
Wright-Patterson employed some 30,000 people. From my own experience
much, probably most of the income from 30,000 employees will be spent
in the state.

I have no idea what is spent by all those people but when I was
stationed in Thailand the base did calculate how much money was being
exchanging for local currency, and thus spent locally, and it averaged
$100 a day per man. If a U.S. base is anything similar then you would
be talking numbers like $3,000,000 a day. Into the local economy :-)

My point is that a similarly sized facility making anything - say,
internet infrastructure for those who now lack it - would have the same
input to the economy. And in addition to that economic input, you'd get
the benefit of the product. With most military expenditures, we get no
benefit from the product.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 2 May 2021 16:37:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 9:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 20:05:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 10:24:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/30/2021 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021

wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a
fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for
someone
else's medical expenses.* After 66, I became a recipient
and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might
benefit me.

I've never complained about paying taxes - except, perhaps,
the portion that go toward maintaining a military that's
larger than the next 20 nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or whatever
- it astounds me that there are people who love the current
U.S. system. It has often exorbitant hospital costs that are
usually hidden from the consumer until too late, it
de-emphasizes preventive care, uses expensive emergency
rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured, it
features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and
multitudes of lawyers on each side to argue over what they
mean, it prevents real bidding or negotiation on many
medicines and procedures, it obscenely enriches its
stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?



Dear Frank-

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/defense.jpg

Everyone decries that the Pentagon wastes half it budget. Few agree with
me that every other Department wastes all of theirs.

Yep. Our military has prevented Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and a
gaggle of Middle Eastern states from invading us. Well, except for that
incident in 2001...

OTOH, the militaries of Britain, France, Switzerland, Japan, Norway,
Russia, China, North Korea and more have all been similarly successful
while spending SO much less.

See

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tary-spending/


or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

Interesting math exercise: Start adding expenditures from #2 on down.
See how many nations you have to total to match the U.S. expenditure.

As with medicine, it seems others get as good or better results with FAR
less expense.

Didn't Eisenhower have something to say about that?

Terrible! Terrible! But, of course a major part of the Defense Budget
is spent in the U.S. and actually benefits the U.S. economy... In
California, $49 billion spent, Virginia, $46.2 billion, Texas, $37.7
billion, and so on. In 2015 some 154 billion went for military
personnel, for example.

I understand. We have an air base near me that every politician is
always fighting to protect because of its benefits to the local economy
- although I don't think they're really all that great.

But OTOH, by that standard, any money the Feds spend can be said to be
beneficial. What's an aircraft carrier cost? Or the latest super war
plane? Taxes pay for a lot of salaries and materials to build those
things, but when they're built, they actually do very little that's
productive. They may make some enemies nervous, but I'm not convinced
the increase in nervousness from yet another carrier is worth the price.

What if that money were spent on (say) solar panels? Or small modular
nuclear reactors? Or repairing bridges? Better internet for people who
practically can't connect now? Job training for laid-off coal miners? I
think there are many places the money would do more good.

It may be that the money could be spent in different ways but in 2019
Wright-Patterson employed some 30,000 people. From my own experience
much, probably most of the income from 30,000 employees will be spent
in the state.

I have no idea what is spent by all those people but when I was
stationed in Thailand the base did calculate how much money was being
exchanging for local currency, and thus spent locally, and it averaged
$100 a day per man. If a U.S. base is anything similar then you would
be talking numbers like $3,000,000 a day. Into the local economy :-)

My point is that a similarly sized facility making anything - say,
internet infrastructure for those who now lack it - would have the same
input to the economy. And in addition to that economic input, you'd get
the benefit of the product. With most military expenditures, we get no
benefit from the product.

Goodness Gracious! You seem to be talking about the government funding
a manufacturing entity... and selling the product to the natives.

Isn't that communism :-?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/1/2021 7:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 10:24:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/30/2021 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021

wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a
fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for
someone
else's medical expenses. After 66, I became a recipient
and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might
benefit me.

I've never complained about paying taxes - except,
perhaps,
the portion that go toward maintaining a military that's
larger than the next 20 nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or
whatever
- it astounds me that there are people who love the
current
U.S. system. It has often exorbitant hospital costs
that are
usually hidden from the consumer until too late, it
de-emphasizes preventive care, uses expensive emergency
rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured, it
features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and
multitudes of lawyers on each side to argue over what they
mean, it prevents real bidding or negotiation on many
medicines and procedures, it obscenely enriches its
stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?



Dear Frank-

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/defense.jpg

Everyone decries that the Pentagon wastes half it
budget. Few agree with
me that every other Department wastes all of theirs.

Yep. Our military has prevented Russia, China, North
Korea, Cuba and a
gaggle of Middle Eastern states from invading us. Well,
except for that
incident in 2001...

OTOH, the militaries of Britain, France, Switzerland,
Japan, Norway,
Russia, China, North Korea and more have all been
similarly successful
while spending SO much less.

See

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tary-spending/



or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures


Interesting math exercise: Start adding expenditures from
#2 on down.
See how many nations you have to total to match the U.S.
expenditure.

As with medicine, it seems others get as good or better
results with FAR
less expense.

Didn't Eisenhower have something to say about that?

Terrible! Terrible! But, of course a major part of the
Defense Budget
is spent in the U.S. and actually benefits the U.S.
economy... In
California, $49 billion spent, Virginia, $46.2 billion,
Texas, $37.7
billion, and so on. In 2015 some 154 billion went for
military
personnel, for example.

I understand. We have an air base near me that every
politician is always fighting to protect because of its
benefits to the local economy - although I don't think
they're really all that great.

But OTOH, by that standard, any money the Feds spend can be
said to be beneficial. What's an aircraft carrier cost? Or
the latest super war plane? Taxes pay for a lot of salaries
and materials to build those things, but when they're built,
they actually do very little that's productive. They may
make some enemies nervous, but I'm not convinced the
increase in nervousness from yet another carrier is worth
the price.

What if that money were spent on (say) solar panels? Or
small modular nuclear reactors? Or repairing bridges? Better
internet for people who practically can't connect now? Job
training for laid-off coal miners? I think there are many
places the money would do more good.



I make the same point often.

One might say a road contract is good for the local economy
and it's nice that the mistresses of county road
commissioners and various officials get new cars but the
idea was to actually build a road.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/2/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/1/2021 9:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 20:05:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 10:24:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/1/2021 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/30/2021 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021

wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich
scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I
was a
fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying
for
someone
else's medical expenses. After 66, I became a
recipient
and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might
benefit me.

I've never complained about paying taxes - except,
perhaps,
the portion that go toward maintaining a military that's
larger than the next 20 nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or
whatever
- it astounds me that there are people who love the
current
U.S. system. It has often exorbitant hospital costs
that are
usually hidden from the consumer until too late, it
de-emphasizes preventive care, uses expensive emergency
rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured, it
features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and
multitudes of lawyers on each side to argue over what
they
mean, it prevents real bidding or negotiation on many
medicines and procedures, it obscenely enriches its
stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?



Dear Frank-

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/defense.jpg

Everyone decries that the Pentagon wastes half it
budget. Few agree with
me that every other Department wastes all of theirs.

Yep. Our military has prevented Russia, China, North
Korea, Cuba and a
gaggle of Middle Eastern states from invading us. Well,
except for that
incident in 2001...

OTOH, the militaries of Britain, France, Switzerland,
Japan, Norway,
Russia, China, North Korea and more have all been
similarly successful
while spending SO much less.

See

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tary-spending/



or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures


Interesting math exercise: Start adding expenditures
from #2 on down.
See how many nations you have to total to match the
U.S. expenditure.

As with medicine, it seems others get as good or better
results with FAR
less expense.

Didn't Eisenhower have something to say about that?

Terrible! Terrible! But, of course a major part of the
Defense Budget
is spent in the U.S. and actually benefits the U.S.
economy... In
California, $49 billion spent, Virginia, $46.2 billion,
Texas, $37.7
billion, and so on. In 2015 some 154 billion went for
military
personnel, for example.

I understand. We have an air base near me that every
politician is
always fighting to protect because of its benefits to the
local economy
- although I don't think they're really all that great.

But OTOH, by that standard, any money the Feds spend can
be said to be
beneficial. What's an aircraft carrier cost? Or the
latest super war
plane? Taxes pay for a lot of salaries and materials to
build those
things, but when they're built, they actually do very
little that's
productive. They may make some enemies nervous, but I'm
not convinced
the increase in nervousness from yet another carrier is
worth the price.

What if that money were spent on (say) solar panels? Or
small modular
nuclear reactors? Or repairing bridges? Better internet
for people who
practically can't connect now? Job training for laid-off
coal miners? I
think there are many places the money would do more good.

It may be that the money could be spent in different ways
but in 2019
Wright-Patterson employed some 30,000 people. From my own
experience
much, probably most of the income from 30,000 employees
will be spent
in the state.

I have no idea what is spent by all those people but when
I was
stationed in Thailand the base did calculate how much
money was being
exchanging for local currency, and thus spent locally, and
it averaged
$100 a day per man. If a U.S. base is anything similar
then you would
be talking numbers like $3,000,000 a day. Into the local
economy :-)

My point is that a similarly sized facility making anything
- say, internet infrastructure for those who now lack it -
would have the same input to the economy. And in addition to
that economic input, you'd get the benefit of the product.
With most military expenditures, we get no benefit from the
product.



Oh, like Solyndra then?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971