Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #1  
Old August 29th, 2011, 09:23 PM
aslan's Avatar
aslan aslan is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 8,683
Default Trapped inside the crash of 2011

I was in the process of writing this response to Automatic Monkey when the thread was locked. I guess the moderator did not see I was trapped inside when he locked the door. Well I made it out, but did not know what to do with this package, so I am dropping it here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey View Post
Obama did not save the auto industry. He saved an antiquated and non-competitive business model from its own extinction and replacement, at the expense of the public. He took money from his enemies (the American people) and gave it to his friends (the unions.)

Providing health care is not a task for all businesses, it is a task for health care providers. Obama's goal is to force us all into a socialized medicine system, where health care is given to those a panel deems worthy and denied to those they deem "clunkers." It would essentially make it illegal for a doctor to treat a patient without permission from the government. Looks kind of like a eugenics program to me.
Eugenics is going a little too far, IMO, but I agree with both your slant on the GM rescue and the socialized approach toward health care. GM deserved to go out of business or into reorganization, and government intervention defeated the whole paradigm upon which free enterprise is based. Union workers could see this coming for decades in this badly managed company, yet hung onto those overpaid jobs to the bitter end. I want to preserve free enterprise. I want competitiveness in quality, innovation and price, and no matter how much taxpayer money government throws at a business, it cannot provide that competitiveness-- quite the opposite. The groundwork has now been laid for future companies to relax with the assurance that big brother will bail them out. This is a definite disincentive to superior performance. Risk itself is an incentive for good decision making. Government's reducing the risk to capitalism does not make sense.

We already have universal health care. No one is denied critical health care by our system. I can see government stepping in to help hospitals and doctors who treat indigent patients; that makes sense. But I cannot see government mandating universal insurance. No one should be required to buy health care insurance. And insurance is a business. Pre-existing conditions are not insurable. Insurable against what risk? There is no risk when it is a sure thing. Do people believe that businesses are in business to lose money? No. It is an area where government can lend its helping hand to the indigent person, or to the hospital or doctor who treats the indigent patient without remuneration, but not by mandating health care insurance. Health care insurance should be available to all persons at a price. Health care insurance should be competitive. Doctors and hospitals should be protected against exorbitant lawsuits, which drive up the cost of health care.

I have a friend in Las Vegas who has a serious heart condition and who needed open heart surgery two years ago. He interviewed a number of surgeons in Las Vegas, but none of them would promise him success. He finally found a surgeon in California who told him that he was absolutely confident in his own ability to operate and to do so successfully. My friend brought that doctor and his entire family to Las Vegas for an extended period of time to do the surgery and to care for him. The doctor succeeded and my friend is back on his feet. He chose to spend a good part of his savings, maybe all of it, I don't know, to obtain the best medical care he could find. I don't begrudge the fact that he had the money to do so. It is up to each person to set his own priorities as to how he spends his money. I myself would probably settle for the best doctor I could find locally, within my means, unless I felt they were all incompetent. Use you money as you see fit. I sure don't want the government determining my level of health care. I am really not interested that under a government plan I will receive good care on average. I want to pick my own doctor if I can, and my own level of care, if I can. If I can't, I'll just have to accept whatever the doctors and hospitals can give to a poor man. That turns out to be very good in my limited experience working with homeless persons. None were ever denied treatment and the treatment they did receive seemed equal to what paying customers were getting.

I feel certain the correct approach to improving health care delivery and health care insurance is with the private sector, not the government. Some regulation will be necessary to allow insurance companies to insure across state lines, to place caps on medical lawsuits that drive the cost of health care through the ceiling, and to make insurance available to every individual at a price. Government makes a good watchdog, but it should never be allowed to run the business. When government runs the business, who will watch government?
  #2  
Old August 30th, 2011, 04:31 AM
blackriver blackriver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aslan View Post
I was in the process of writing this response to Automatic Monkey when the thread was locked. I guess the moderator did not see I was trapped inside when he locked the door. Well I made it out, but did not know what to do with this package, so I am dropping it here.




Eugenics is going a little too far, IMO, but I agree with both your slant on the GM rescue and the socialized approach toward health care. GM deserved to go out of business or into reorganization, and government intervention defeated the whole paradigm upon which free enterprise is based. Union workers could see this coming for decades in this badly managed company, yet hung onto those overpaid jobs to the bitter end. I want to preserve free enterprise. I want competitiveness in quality, innovation and price, and no matter how much taxpayer money government throws at a business, it cannot provide that competitiveness-- quite the opposite. The groundwork has now been laid for future companies to relax with the assurance that big brother will bail them out. This is a definite disincentive to superior performance. Risk itself is an incentive for good decision making. Government's reducing the risk to capitalism does not make sense.

We already have universal health care. No one is denied critical health care by our system. I can see government stepping in to help hospitals and doctors who treat indigent patients; that makes sense. But I cannot see government mandating universal insurance. No one should be required to buy health care insurance. And insurance is a business. Pre-existing conditions are not insurable. Insurable against what risk? There is no risk when it is a sure thing. Do people believe that businesses are in business to lose money? No. It is an area where government can lend its helping hand to the indigent person, or to the hospital or doctor who treats the indigent patient without remuneration, but not by mandating health care insurance. Health care insurance should be available to all persons at a price. Health care insurance should be competitive. Doctors and hospitals should be protected against exorbitant lawsuits, which drive up the cost of health care.

I have a friend in Las Vegas who has a serious heart condition and who needed open heart surgery two years ago. He interviewed a number of surgeons in Las Vegas, but none of them would promise him success. He finally found a surgeon in California who told him that he was absolutely confident in his own ability to operate and to do so successfully. My friend brought that doctor and his entire family to Las Vegas for an extended period of time to do the surgery and to care for him. The doctor succeeded and my friend is back on his feet. He chose to spend a good part of his savings, maybe all of it, I don't know, to obtain the best medical care he could find. I don't begrudge the fact that he had the money to do so. It is up to each person to set his own priorities as to how he spends his money. I myself would probably settle for the best doctor I could find locally, within my means, unless I felt they were all incompetent. Use you money as you see fit. I sure don't want the government determining my level of health care. I am really not interested that under a government plan I will receive good care on average. I want to pick my own doctor if I can, and my own level of care, if I can. If I can't, I'll just have to accept whatever the doctors and hospitals can give to a poor man. That turns out to be very good in my limited experience working with homeless persons. None were ever denied treatment and the treatment they did receive seemed equal to what paying customers were getting.

I feel certain the correct approach to improving health care delivery and health care insurance is with the private sector, not the government. Some regulation will be necessary to allow insurance companies to insure across state lines, to place caps on medical lawsuits that drive the cost of health care through the ceiling, and to make insurance available to every individual at a price. Government makes a good watchdog, but it should never be allowed to run the business. When government runs the business, who will watch government?
yeah, but we spend more than other countries on medicine and are much less healthy. people with serious/expensive problems can be prevented on the cheap. we chose not to give people simple treatment, sometimes just some counciling and then they become very unhealthy to the point that they now need to use the ER which they will and itll cost a quarter mill now to treat some idiot who just needed to be told to take some shots or penicilian a month ago.

everyone hates the idea that there are experts. maybe they arent perfect but everytime democrats try to improve a system where the market has failed republicans say "no, let the market handle it [even though its failed thus far]" and act like we're all supposed to be experts on everything. yeah the market will handle it eventually by way of survival of the fittest. litterally just like survival of the fittest does a very good job or managing our health (not sarcastic, yet). your not healthy? dont worry, there are others who've been thru what you've been thru and some of them will have better genes to handle it ensuring future generations will be fine. which is very elegant and good for the species. but that doesnt help you. the same way a business killing you will also be shooting itself in the foot. yeah, that business womt last for ever. but why not have people in charge of fixing these problems sooner than later.

we recogise that we dont want to be experts in product safety, so the governemnt protects us. we dont want to have to spend our lives focusing on survival so we have police and tanks to protect us. we want to be able to move around easily so we have the government build roads etc. this is just another arbitrary line. it could just as easily be about trash collection. and youd have a bunch of assholes saying "the gubermint cant tell me what to do with my old refridgerators, cars and matresses. let the yuppies pay to send it to a landfill/recycling and ill dump mine in a river or a park." lots of people believe that and they also feel the same way about healthcare.



the idea behind libertrianism is that people will just learn to deal with the consequences of their actions. but life is largely random and our consequences are not perfectly alligned. life is like poker/blackjack where people do stupid **** all the time and get rewarded for it while others do the right thing and get punished. you would probably never have become a pro b player if no one had done the ground work for you and figured most of it out. well life is like playign 20 your first 20-50 hands of blackjack or poker. maybe after 10 hands you understand the game mechanics and how things are. but by the time its over you may or may not have any idea how to make a decision right. probably not.

if you only get to play 20 hands of poker in life, you would greatly prefer to have a dealer guide you and some skalansky books to tellyou how not to get punked.


what we've chosen to privatize or not is also somewhat random. but if you didnt lready know what sort of things we privatise and to what extent but had to decided what sorts of industries should be private and which shouldnt you would see some things as being products services that require competition among providers, differentiation and arent necessary for everyone. youd see other things that the market wouldnt create enough of but people would rather have than not such as defence, education, infrastructure, police,post offices etc. there is obvious overlap between these things. people can buy guns, roads education, security, and postal services. health insurance is one of these. you can just wallow around until your in a life or death situation and go to the ER or you can pay a little and prevent these expensive catastrophes.

the rest of the world has decided that they would rather ay less up front and provide people with better and more productive lives than wait for their lives to ge to the point of desparation and pay 1000x times the cost to keep them alive albeit miserable and unhealthy still
  #3  
Old August 30th, 2011, 07:39 AM
Machinist Machinist is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Here n there......midwest
Posts: 985
Default

Just a wee bit of responsibility for ones actions would also go a long way towards prevention. How about the obese??? I cant imagine the costs to the already free health that is available to the lazy, in body and mind.
Free doesn't work, it breeds laziness. I have a frikend right now that is on unemployment last 2 years, it ran out, he hasn't looked for a job in that 2 years. He worked for cash jobs on and off. Now he is on food stamps. Here's the worst part I let him stay at in one of my houses for free, ,,,,he now watches springer all day!!
The car that was given to him so he could look for work is broke now. He was so dependent on others growing up he can't get himself going again. There are jobs out of the state but he won't go.......he's just gonna sit and wait it out???
So unfortunately I'm gonna have to tell him the facts of life and tell him to hit the road. I can't and won't feel sorry anymore, everybody has tried to help him. He has become a slug in only 2 years.
Life is a bitch somestimes and yes the fittest do survive.

Machinist
  #4  
Old August 30th, 2011, 09:03 AM
blackjack avenger's Avatar
blackjack avenger blackjack avenger is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,267
Default easy examples

Someone may look it up

I think aid to dependent mothers was open ended regarding number of kids before Clinton. Then welfare reform, aid was limited to 3 kids tops? Any guess what happened to birth rates? Dropped to 3 kids tops. It's been a generation, time for help to be limited to 2 kids.

Want poor? Have programs for the poor. If you pay people not working it morphs into paying people not to work. Politically, it becomes vote buying. The high pay of government employees is just vote buying.

Norway? Discovered the average length of unemployment matched the length of unemployment insurance.

Ben Franklin? Has a quote stating similar. Programs create poor.

BJ as a business, if government backed my losses & allowed any expense. Reckless high variance play would be the rule with wine, women & song as expenses, or at least sport
stadium suites.

A big problem with US health is personal responsibility: obesity, smoke, drink, drugs.
If drug users got 0 support, there would be tragedies, but fewer people would probably start because that road would truly be dark. Of course ones humanity would cry out to not let them starve in the streets, but then where is the lesson for the rest of us?

Now schizophrenics should be taken off the streets, that's different, they are sick through no fault of their own.

Last edited by blackjack avenger; August 30th, 2011 at 09:10 AM.
  #5  
Old August 30th, 2011, 10:28 AM
shadroch shadroch is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,696
Default

Anyone notice that the same people who insist Darwinism works in the business world are pretty much the same ones who think Creationism should be taught alongside Darwin in schools?
  #6  
Old August 30th, 2011, 10:55 AM
Friendo's Avatar
Friendo Friendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
Anyone notice that the same people who insist Darwinism works in the business world are pretty much the same ones who think Creationism should be taught alongside Darwin in schools?
Yep.

A wide swath of the electorate believes that the free market finds the optimal solution in every situation, but that the ecosystem, a system closer to a perfect-competition free market than any in the business world, cannot possibly speciate and optimize without the hand of god.

I dunno: I used to believe in evolution, but there are some folks in corporate management, as well as a couple of pit crews in my neighborhood, who throw a wrench in the theory that massively unfit organisms cannot prosper. Maybe we need a few dozen generations of casinos and corporate structures to weed these people out?
  #7  
Old August 30th, 2011, 11:15 AM
Automatic Monkey's Avatar
Automatic Monkey Automatic Monkey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 5,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
Anyone notice that the same people who insist Darwinism works in the business world are pretty much the same ones who think Creationism should be taught alongside Darwin in schools?
Can you define "Creationism" for us?

And do you know of any public school teacher who assigns the writings of Darwin to his or her students? That teacher would probably be fired for racism.
  #8  
Old August 30th, 2011, 11:31 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aslan View Post
Eugenics is going a little too far, IMO, but I agree with both your slant on the GM rescue and the socialized approach toward health care.
We already have universal health care. No one is denied critical health care by our system.
First, there is absolutely nothing about the current health care legislation that is socialist. It is 100% private. There isn't even a public option, which disgusts me.

We do not have universal health care. We have universal emergency care. The difference is enormous. Universal health care means that you get checkups and maintenance medicine. Cholesterol, blood pressure, etc medicines that not only prolong life, but reduce future costs. Universal emergency care means you are made stable, and then sent to a public hospital. If your feet are in bad shape from an accident or diabetes, and you have health insurance or money, they will save your feet. If not, they will save your life -- by amputating your feet. (I'm not making that up.)
  #9  
Old August 30th, 2011, 11:58 AM
sagefr0g's Avatar
sagefr0g sagefr0g is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
Anyone notice that the same people who insist Darwinism works in the business world are pretty much the same ones who think Creationism should be taught alongside Darwin in schools?
Creationism? Darwinism? hmmmm
just me maybe, leave out our best of science and our best of (??? for lack of a better word) voodoo at one's peril. neither is likely perfect., yet perhaps each contains pearls of wisdom, leaving room for thought.
  #10  
Old August 30th, 2011, 12:04 PM
Friendo's Avatar
Friendo Friendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
Creationism? Darwinism? hmmmm
just me maybe, leave out our best of science and our best of (??? for lack of a better word) voodoo at one's peril. neither is likely perfect., yet perhaps each contains pearls of wisdom, leaving room for thought.
Google "golden mean fallacy", or "argument to moderation".

"Some people feel that Hitler did a lot of good things for Germany, and that his ideas, as expressed in Mein Kampf, have merit. Others feel that he was terrible for Germany and the world in general, and that his philosophy is horrible. We should take care, then, to find a position between these two extremes: surely, there is where we will find the truth."
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC