124 Reasons

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 1234@12 January 2004 - 16:16

I would prefer you prove that it is not

Eh? You make a spurious claim and the onus is on me to disprove it? Sorry but the way this works is that you have to prove your claims.

Example - The planets orbiting our nearest neighbour stars are made of green cheese. Prove me wrong otherwise I am right.

You can't, as the data is not available since we can only track these planets by gravitational distortions not direct observations. Does that mean they are made of green cheese just because I said so? Nope, I'd have to prove it.

So please prove your claim otherwise it is uninformed opinion and nothing more.

Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?

Nope, so why are you claiming to have knowledge of how the NHS is financed?

85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.

The US is one of the fiscally corrupt western nations (cf Enron, Worldcom etc and their links to the Bush administration. Halliburton overcharging on Iraq contracts etc) where contracts are given to old friends and financial backers of the imcumbant administration. However, I still want to see you prove this claim too. Lets say social security in the US has a budget of 100 billion (just to keep figures simple), are you saying 85 billion is administration costs and only 15 billion is spent on benefits? If the UK operated at those levels the Audit Commission would have apoplexy. So, prove this claim too if you would be so kind.

It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.

From your previous posts I am guessing the real reason is that you don't like paying taxes to pay for them. As Thatcher said once, "No such thing as society" could apply to you maybe?

Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?

The Audit Commission.

Anyway, lets not stray from the point here. Prove your claim that 85% of the NHS's budget is spent on bureaucracy. Hell, lets make it 80% so we fit into your +/- 5%.

You see you have made a simple mistake, so I will help you out a little. You are lumping in service providers with regulatory bodies and statutory functions. There is a difference you know

You are once again mistaken.

I never claimed to have any knowledge of your National Health service other than the fact of your having one.

My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.

That fact alone is why I asked that you, oh, great and wondrous 1234, disprove it.

You are so eager to take me on that you dig threads out of the dustbin?

I suggest you get a life.

One more thing:

Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.

As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.

If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration.

I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you.

[BabyGeniuses]

Herez #1 proved:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=h...d_Me.pdf&e=7764

It talks about some old dude and his son and how this old dude is a vet of some war and how the government cut 25 billion in vet pay or something.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BabyGeniuses@13 January 2004 - 02:05
Herez #1 proved:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=h...d_Me.pdf&e=7764

It talks about some old dude and his son and how this old dude is a vet of some war and how the government cut 25 billion in vet pay or something.

Good for you!

Now, the other 123.....?

[chalice]

Originally posted by Biggles@12 January 2004 - 19:35
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.

I hate to correct Biggles and I dare say it was just a slip of the digit but a Quango is a Quasi autonomous nongovernmental organisation.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 21:47
That fact alone is why I asked that you, oh, great and wondrous 1234, disprove it.

You are so eager to take me on that you dig threads out of the dustbin?

I suggest you get a life.

you might wanna put your glasses on and look again, to see who disturbed the hallowed burial ground of old threads. wasn't 1234, i'm afraid.

[1234]

My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.

  Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)

You try and link nationalised health care to no money for research and no breakthroughs, coupled with 85% bureaucratic costs.

I am showing you that this is not the case, using the NHS and UK medical research as an example.

Understand?

Now if you want to just say that the US is incapable of doing it thats fine, but many countries do manage it. So it would seem nationalisation is not the problem, wonder what the problem could be?

Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.

At what point? I seem to recall there being sanctions in place during Clintons tenure so Haliburton shouldn't have been there at all Halliburton also paid large sums to the democrats (along with Enron, Worldcom, etc) to grease the wheels when Clinton was in.

As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.

A hero of mine? He is a good time guy from Alabama who managed to charm his way all the way to the White House. Infinitly preferable to Bush, but definitly not a hero of mine. Many US conservatives tend to forget that to most countries both your parties are right wing.

So please, recount away. Tales of sanction busting are always welcome.

If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration

Heh, more comphrehensive? Bush's admin is full of ex oil. I'd list some, but it would probably be easier to list the ones that don't have a connection. However we can both agree though that whatever US party is in office they like a nice backhander. That is what you are saying isn't it?

I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you

But your green cheese is still out there. Prove that social security payments (I believe you call that welfare) to individuals are 15% of the total welfare budget, with the other 85% being bureaucracy. That's in the US btw, like I asked earlier.

[j2k4]

QUOTE
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.




QUOTE
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)



You try and link nationalised health care to no money for research and no breakthroughs, coupled with 85% bureaucratic costs.

Once again, not accurate.

My point is that a National Health Care system in the U.S. would, as a matter of habit and practice, be afflicted with a bureaucracy similar to those extant.

From there, it would only be prudent to forecast a similar cost for same.

I would ask you to provide us with the details of how the U.K. handles the bureaucratic problems inherent in this situation; indeed, what it spends on it's NHS, and what percentage of same goes to the attending bureaucracy?

Can you not answer this simple question?

I am showing you that this is not the case, using the NHS and UK medical research as an example.

For you to be, as you say, "showing me" you would have to provide details you have not so far.

As a result, you are telling me; you are showing me nothing.

Understand?

Sorry, no.

Now if you want to just say that the US is incapable of doing it thats fine, but many countries do manage it. So it would seem nationalisation is not the problem, wonder what the problem could be?

I have no problem saying the U.S. is incapable of "doing it".

I sincerely wish that were not the case, but as you mistakenly believe me to be afflicted with terminal jingoism, you have overlooked the possibility that I could be dissatisfied with my own government.

But I digress.

QUOTE
Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.



At what point? I seem to recall there being sanctions in place during Clintons tenure so Haliburton shouldn't have been there at all Halliburton also paid large sums to the democrats (along with Enron, Worldcom, etc) to grease the wheels when Clinton was in.


QUOTE
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.



A hero of mine? He is a good time guy from Alabama who managed to charm his way all the way to the White House. Infinitly preferable to Bush, but definitly not a hero of mine. Many US conservatives tend to forget that to most countries both your parties are right wing.

So you are left of everyone, huh? That's too bad.

BTW-I wouldn't even mention it if it was someone else, but Clinton was from Arkansas (as shown graphically, and repeatedly, elsewhere in this very thread), not Alabama.

So please, recount away. Tales of sanction busting are always welcome.

No, I promised you I wouldn't do that.

QUOTE
If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration

Heh, more comphrehensive? Bush's admin is full of ex oil. I'd list some, but it would probably be easier to list the ones that don't have a connection. However we can both agree though that whatever US party is in office they like a nice backhander. That is what you are saying isn't it?

Are you trying to co-opt my words? Shame on you.

QUOTE
I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you



But your green cheese is still out there. Prove that social security payments (I believe you call that welfare) to individuals are 15% of the total welfare budget, with the other 85% being bureaucracy. That's in the US btw, like I asked earlier.

No, I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it.


3RA1N1AC-

1234 (or !@#$, as I refer to him in private) used as entree here a post of mine from July, I think, no matter who bumped the thread.

Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 08:08
Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest.   [/color][/i]

how could i not have inferred that your accusation toward 1234 carried a hostility that stands regardless of the mislaid blame for the aforementioned bumpage? well, at least you've more than filled my daily quota for instruction in nuance... i'll have to balance that out by viewing videos of people being kicked in the groin.

[vidcc]

i wonder if j2 ever suffers from repeatative strain syndrom with all that typing

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@13 January 2004 - 14:13
i wonder if j2 ever suffers from repeatative strain syndrom with all that typing

No.

I have to work quickly, however, due to a condition brought on by eyestrain.

I take frequent breaks, often between words.

Besides, I certainly don't type as much as you or the others do.