Gibson Guitar Plant Raided

[hasserl]

Are you really stupid, or are you being difficult? I have no health insurance because I'm self employed. Sure, I can go to a doctor and pay out of pocket. But I often can't afford that. Every other developed country in the world has free medical aid to their citizens. Even Cuba. Why not the US?

So it is YOUR decision to be self employed, and it's YOUR decision to forgo purchasing health insurance. These are YOUR decisions, and decisions have consequences. What you want is other people to pay for your health care, to subsidize your decision to be self employed. That is greed. You like to make innuendos about the greed of health insurance companies or corporations, but you are just as greedy. Learn to deal with your own self created problems on your own without demanding that others take care of them for you. Pay your own way.

Yes crap, crap, crap. Learn to speak succinctly and it wont take as many words. People are making this more difficult because they are opposed to it.

Learn to speak intelligently and I won't have to correct you all the time.

Really, you read the thing huh? But it's OK that we have public schools, police, fire departments and the post office? Those are all socialized services. If everyone had to send their kids to a private school you would hear a whole lot about that.

Yes, I have, and I happen to have a copy right here on my desk as I type right now. As for schools, police, fire depts those are state & local issues, paid for and governed by the states and local communities, not Federal. You do understand the difference? The Post Office actually pre-dates the Constitution, it was started by the Continental Congress in 1775.

Why couldn't they do it. Explain.

Because they can't do anything very well, including winning wars! Oh, we can blow shit up real good, but that's about it. Take your example of the Post Office, it runs deficits every year, the service is terrible and numerous private businesses have far better service at much better pricing and they do it at a profit, not continual loss.

They do it in other countries. When my wife lived in Spain and Italy she was able to walk into a pharmacy and get an asthma inhaler for free or for a couple of bucks. Here they cost about $120. Why? It's about 50 cents worth of ingredients. The pharmaceutical company made back whatever R&D was involved years ago. Why charge so much for so little? To make lots of money. I can see maybe for something like Viagra, but for something to keep you alive?

Then why don't you go into the pharma business and provide meds for 50 cents? What's stopping you? It must be so easy to do, go for it. The truth is it is not easy to do, or cheap. It costs money to do, somebody has to risk putting their money up front to pay for everything with the risk that they'll make a profit. It takes someone dealing with regulations, and permits, locating facilities, supply chains, transportation, personnel issues, sales, product shelf life, product liability and lawsuit defense, etc. This is free market capitalism 101, something I would think an entrepreneur would understand. At least someone that doesn't have their head up their ass.

And in case you didn't notice, Spain and other European countries are on the verge of collapse, not being able to pay for all of the entitlements they've provided to the people. Not to mention the fiscal condition of the US, which is experiencing the largest deficits in the history of the world.

And now my wife's health insurance is making her buy her meds by mail.

In the UK and Canada you also get free medical care. In the UK they even give you cab fare. We are supposed to be this rich country right?

See above, we are broke. The US is the brokest country in the history of the world. Never before has a country carried the kind of debt the US is now carrying. The EU crisis is nothing compared to what this country is headed towards at the rate we are going. It will make Greece's default look like a day in the park in comparison.

So how do they make it work, and we don't? Because there's big money to be made in health insurance and pharma.

They don't. Try getting a routine MRI in England or Canada.

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

Also as far as not being able to do it, that's nonsense (or crap as you say) because in some extent they already do. Since I have no health insurance, my 7 year old daughter gets her health insurance though a federal and state funded health insurance program. So most of the time she doesn't pay anything for doctor visits or prescriptions. Nothing. Maybe $1 for some prescriptions. Now my wife has health insurance through her job, but to add her daughter, or me, would remove several hundred dollars from her pay each week.

That's called freeloading you bum. Instead of paying your own way, your FAIR SHARE, you're taking from the public dole for your own kid. What a jerk. SOMEBODY has to pay for those visits, the doctors have bills to pay, they pay their staff a salalry plus bennies, they pay rent & utilities, they pay malpractice insurance, the money to pay for those things has to come from somewhere. So they have to raise the rates to those patients who aren't freeloaders, who actually PAY THEIR BILLS to cover the costs. You're freeloading costs EVERYBODY else more and results in increased prices. And you have the nerve to criticize ANYONE else about money? Get a job and pay your own way you creep.

My son, who's in collage, got health insurance thought he school, but it was very expensive for a year.

So, you have a son in college? How are you paying for that? More freeloading off the public dime? Or, if you're paying for his education, than you've made the decision to pay for that, the money could instead be spent on health insurance. That you chose to spend it on his education was YOUR decision, no one forced you to do it. Don't ask me or anyone else to pay for your health care because you decided to spend what money you had on your kids college education instead of health insurance for yourself and your daughter.

I didn't decide anything. I just don't have $1,400 a month for insurance. That's how much is is you know. That's what I pay for rent. Do you not see a problem with that? How much is your car insurance? Not $1,400 a month. Plain and simple there needs to be some reform in this area.

Your situation in life is a direct result of the choices you've made along the way. Nobody forced you into anything. You were not raised in Soviet Russia where your education and vocation and your residence were decided for you by some bureaucrat. YOU decided if/where you would go to school and what your education would be. YOU decided your own career path. Whatever you have or don't have is a direct result of those choices. Don't blame anyone else for your situation. That you don't have health insurance is YOUR own fault. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming other people for your lack of success or for the things you don't have.

If health insurance is too expensive there are market oriented solutions that could help reduce the cost of insurance. They don't require increased taxes and gov't spending. They don't require new bureaucracies or additions to gov't pension funds and public workers unions.

Explain how that would ruin anything. How would anything change?

In numerous ways, you simply have not been paying attention to what people have been saying about this. There is a finite amount of health care providers in the country, you simply cannot dump 30M more patients into a system of the same size and expect everyone to receive the same care they are now getting. And at the same time reduce payments to doctors for the medicare & medicaid work they are now doing (you do realize that is part of it, right?). You cannot take away from the doctors the ability to oversee and direct the care of their patients and put it into the hands of bureaucrats and not have the quality of care suffer. You cannot take away the incentive for doctors to enter the field of health care and expect to have sufficient numbers of new & graduating medical students to supply the numbers needed to cover the 30M new patients, plus cover the loss of dr's that leave the field due to retirement or other reasons. There are many, many reasons why this plan will destroy health care in this country if it is not stopped by the SCOTUS or repealed by the next Congress/President. And it is so deeply entangled in so many ways completely repealing it will be exceptionally difficult if not impossible.

No one is forcing anyone to buy insurance? Where did you get that idea?

Boy, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? It's called the individual mandate. Individual mandate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It requires EVERY person in the US to purchase health insurance, or pay a fine if they don't. That is what the challenge in the SCOTUS is all about. Does Congress have the Constitutional authority to mandate people engage in commerce? The Constitution gives the Congress the power to regulate INTERSTATE commerce, it's called the Commerce Clause. And that Commerce Clause has been abused and expanded in numerous ways to expand authority of the Congress to regulate in ways far beyond what was ever envisioned by the founders. But, as of yet it has never been interpreted to include the power to mandate somebody to engage in commerce. That is a new one. And the court will hear arguments for it later this year. If this is upheld, then any limit on Congressional power will have been lifted. Congress could logically require ANY action they wanted to.

[hasserl]

However, to show where you are not thinking clearly, if you have a job in the US, most employers provide you with health insurance. So you ARE being forced into buying insurance, unless you don't want to have any, and in that case wait until something happens and you end up in the hospital.

This is another example of just how much you don't understand the topic. This is what is dangerous about our system, people with no idea of what they are talking about are allowed to vote and their vote carries just as much weight as anyone else. Wow. You are on dangerous dude. Many companies provide health insurance to their employees as a benefit, because it started during a time when a wage freeze was in place, and it was means of getting around the wage freeze by providing a benefit to the employee when their wages could not legally be increased. After the wage freeze was lifted the practice continued because employees liked the fact that their health insurance was not taxed as income, so it became a sort of tax avoidance scheme, and eventually became engrained in our society as normal. This is not healthy, and one of the market oriented things that could be done to reduce the cost of health insurance would be to allow individuals to deduct the cost of insurance from their gross income. This would allow companies to get out of the insurance game and just pay the money to their employees and allow the employees to negotiate their own health insurance coverage and pay for it themselves. I expect this whole point will be lost on you, and you will come back with some inane statement or argument about why that isn't a good idea. Par for the course with you.

Please. You mean more so than the Patriot Act?

Yes, more than the Patriot Act. It expands the power and control of the fed gov't even more. Seriously, do some research.

What's the IRS have to do with healthcare? Hello? It's Medicaid! We already have that. That's who covers my daughter's insurance and though some other companies that are part of the system. It's already in place.

This is getting ridiculous. ObamaCare

What does this have to do with ObamaCare? Days before the U.S. House and Senate passed ObamaCare’s final revisions, reconciliations, and motions to concur, Republican Members of the House Ways and Means Committee reported the government takeover of the health care insurance industry would dramatically expand the I.R.S. Specifically, the I.R.S. would need as many as 16,500 new “auditors, agents and other employees” to police the new law

Again, do your research.

It would be nice to have our high taxes go to something other than defense.

Probably one of the few things the fed gov't is actually tasked with is defense.

My brain is working fine. How about yours? You like to use names like "Bam Bam". Why because Obama is black? Be honest, that's why most people don't like him. Now I voted for him, and I think he turned out to be a disappointment. But he hasn't done any harm yet, unlike Bush. Oh and then Clinton had an affair... wow, shocking. But he's a smarter man than Bush is. But see, that doesn't matter. Just use some ad hominem attacks on people because they are left or right, and forget what the job they are supposed to be doing is.

No, no your brain isn't working fine. Clearly you've made statements that show you really don't know what you're talking about. You don't know about certain key points in the whole debate. You need to engage your brain in order for it to work. You tend to shut it down completely and not think things thru at all.

And you're confusing me with someone else, I didn't call anyone "Bam Bam".

[hasserl]

Hey, you want to put your intellect up against mine buddy? Be my guest.

It really wouldn't be a fair fight, I would be taking huge advantage of you and that wouldn't be nice.

Gibson smuggled illegally harvested wood from Madagascar.

Gibson Guitar raided over Indian ebony - Sep. 2, 2011

The wood was allegedly exported illegally because it was unfinished and too thick to be a veneer,

Gibson Guitar Wails on Federal Raid - WSJ.com

The government has focused on a March 2009 shipment of ebony from Madagascar intended for guitar fingerboards. Madagascar law bars the export of certain unfinished wood products, according to both Gibson and the government. Gibson says the ebony had been cut into pieces and that local officials approved the export as a legal sale of finished goods.

The whole thing is about whether the wood was "finished" or unfinished.

And my brain never shuts down. The difference is I'm actually thinking, and you are just accepting what pundits say. People are too complacent to just leave things the way they are, and don't rock the boat. We didn't break away from England by being complacent.

Well I think I've shown that to be untrue. You either do shut down your brain when discussing political issues, or you have exceptionally poor critical thinking skills.

[J M Fahey]

They don't. Try getting a routine MRI in England or Canada.

Not talking about Canada, UK or first line European Countries but relatively second rate, still "European" Argentina.
Can't talk about an MRI scan, because I never needed one, but 2 years ago I suffered a high blood pressure peak and woke up with my left side paralyzed.
I went to a Municipal Public Hospital and immediatly a CT scan was ordered by the doctor.
Not "if" or "but" or "maybe".
They were worried about the delay it would take: "sorry, we canīt scan you now ..... can you come ..... tomorrow?"
It was not NASA approved equipment .... it was just a UK built, perfectly maintained and calibrated 10 Y.O. Marconi CT Scanner.
Total cost?= 0 / nil / ZERO .
Does it mean I got it for free? No, it was already paid for.
*That's* what Taxes are for.
Argentina reduced its Armed Forces in the 90's to a skeletonized 10% of what they were before.
Guess where that money went ?
Compare it to the US costs for the exact same Medical procedure: (U$6500 for an ovary CT scan)
from: Why does a CT scan cost so much in the USA? at scan man’s notes
an excerpt:

the emergency room. There, doctors ordered a full CT scan, a radiation imaging test, which found a harmless ovarian cyst. She never questioned the CT scan, CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports.

But her father did - when he got the $8,500 bill, $6,500 of which was that CT scan. “I was pretty flabbergasted,” said Robert Varipapa, himself a physician. Varipapa says his daughter’s pain could have been diagnosed far more easily and cheaply with a $1,400 ultrasound. “A history, a pelvic examination and probably an ultrasound,” he said. And he would have started with the ultrasound.

$6,500 for an abdominal CT scan!!!

Dr. Varipapa had a right to be flabbergasted. After all, he footed the bill.

This raised my eyebrows: a $1400 ovary ultrasound?

A couple months ago, I had a testicle ultrasound made (I only mention this not to be gory but to show it was the male equivalent) *plus* a prostate one, *plus* a bladder one , *plus* a renal one (it was all related, because of Diabetes complications), and since I didnīt want to wait 15 days for a free Public Hospital one (there was an unusually long queue for that service) I paid for it at an expensive Private Hospital one: U$100.
They canīt charge much more because then people waits for a few days instead.
Do they lose money?
Most emphatically, not at all.
They are building/expanding new Medical facilities every day.
The equipment was last generation (less than one year old).

[hasserl]

That's called an "anecdote", which means it's a nice story. It's like what I posted above, which I did anticipating that someone else would chime in with one of their own, just like you did. For as many anecdotes telling about how nice the "free" systems work there are as many horror stories. You don't set policies based on anecdotes. Also, the situation you described was an emergency, which is different than a non-emergency procedure, in which case your wait would have likely been far longer. See this paper: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

In 2005 Canadians waited 12.3 weeks for an MRI scan, 5.5 weeks for a CT-scan and 3.4 weeks for an ultrasound. (Fraser Institute, Chart 16.) In 2002, Canada had fewer CT scanners per 1,000 population than the OECD average (10.8 compared with 19). Similarly, it had only 4.7 MRI scanners per 1,000 population compared with an OECD average of 7.9. Unsurprisingly, many choose to fly south to the US for diagnosis and treatment.

But, looking at the story you posted I noticed this:

But her father did - when he got the $8,500 bill, $6,500 of which was that CT scan. “I was pretty flabbergasted,” said Robert Varipapa, himself a physician. Varipapa says his daughter’s pain could have been diagnosed far more easily and cheaply with a $1,400 ultrasound. “A history, a pelvic examination and probably an ultrasound,” he said. And he would have started with the ultrasound.

.

One of the reasons for the high costs of health care in this country is because dr's and hospitals routinely order procedures far beyond what is reasonable called for, because of fear of malpractice suits that plague the industry and drive the costs up for everyone. So we pay for unnecessary procedures and we pay elevated costs on those procedures so everyone involved can cover their asses with malpractice insurance.

And, since people like David Schwab don't pay their way and get their medical care for free, then the rest of the poor suckers that actually pay their bills have to pay extra to cover those costs too.

There are ways to deal with these costs that don't require the gov't take over of the industry, some simple tort reform would go a long way.

And finally, I don't know about your country, but here we have a Constitutional Republic, the government is restrained Constitutionally to perform only those tasks that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, they cannot do whatever they want to do just because it may, or may not, be a good idea. And again, there is no enumerated provision in the Constitution for the gov't to provide health care. The Constitution can be amended, there is a process for that, but that process is not Congress just deciding to do something and passing a law, that's not how it works.

[Steve Conner]

Will you guys stop it. I thought I heard mention of a 9/11 conspiracy somewhere.

Here are some data points from the UK:
When my brother was at high school, he woke up one day to find one side of his face paralysed. An MRI scan was arranged within days. He refused it because he was scared of the machinery. Luckily it turned out to be Bell's Palsy and went away of its own accord.

On the other hand, I waited 2 years to get my impacted wisdom teeth removed on the NHS.

Obviously we think our health service is the best thing in the world, but it obviously costs the taxpayer a lot, and there is the age old debate as to whether a privatised one would deliver more value for money. I'll say one thing, I bet those asthma inhalers don't cost $120 to make, more like $1.20.

The year before last, I went to Whistler bike park in Canada. I had to get some fairly expensive insurance from a company specialising in extreme sports, but not only that, I heard a grisly rumour that the first thing the paramedics look for is your credit card. I'd love to know if there is any truth to this.

[Cygnus X1]

'Scuse me.
I was looking for the restroom.
Can someone point me in the correct direction?

[J M Fahey]

That's called an "anecdote", which means it's a nice story.

Sorry but itīs not, but *fact*, which happened to *me*.
Not something you might quote which happened to "a friend of a friend of a friend".
In fact I might call "anecdotes" those "horror stories" quoted in the papers you mention, of course.
Whatīs the big difference?
What I said happened to me, period, while what you mentioned happened to somebody else, (not you or anybody you directly know).
Who they are, I donīt know; data was collected by unspecified methods, etc.
Might have some truth in them ... or not .... but "indirect" data is so less trusty than "direct", "it happened to me" one.

As of Argentina, itīs a presidential representative democratic republic.
This is stated in its Constitution, of course.

Do we *need* to have the Constitution guarantee Health for everybody?
No. Not necessarily. Not at all.
The same way that we do not need it to order the Government to provide building or health or electrical or driving or whatever safety codes, provide Education or Justice, or protect the Country from foreign aggression or Police to guarantee inner Peace or whatever else is needed for the Society, meaning all people which are part of it.
Itīs not necessary to enumerate those tasks one by one, because they are implicit or built in in the mandate to be the Country Government.
The Government was invented to benefit the Citizens as a whole, and such tasks are inherent to the job.

Back to "anecdote", whose meaning you do not seem to grasp:
If I cross a road and die hit by a Meteorite, it will be doubtlessly true (it happened after all) but so unlikely to be repeated as to be called "an anecdote".
But if 30 people a month die crossing that road, hit by cars, itīs not an "anecdote" any more, but a gruesome statistical fact.
Specially because after one month of that, next month *very probably* around 30 people will bekilled again, under the same circunstances.
While if somebody died hit by a meteorite one month, itīs very very unlikely that happens again next month ... or any of the following ones.
Now you *should* know the difference between anecdote and statistic fact.
Receiving a CT scan at the Piņero Municipal Hospital in Buenos Aires within a week is not anecdote but statistic fact.
I went there for treatment for the next 3 months, can vouch for it, saw it myself.
10 to 20 people CT scanned every day.
"Anecdote?" ..... pooh!!

[hasserl]

As I posted earlier, the US federal gov't is constitutionally restrained to ONLY perform those tasks that are ENUMERATED in the US Constitution. Your gov't may be, or probably is, different. Whatever. The point is in THIS country that is fact. And this point is driven home by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states that all powers not specifically enumerated ARE RETAINED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE. Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

This is very key to how our gov't is supposed to work. I don't expect you to fully understand all of that, that is fine, it's not your country. But when the topic is healthcare in the US, then it is US laws that are what's important, not Argentinian, or Canadian, or UK or any other country. Whatever the laws are there are fine for those country, but they don't apply here, and here there are specific laws regarding the operation of the gov't, like 'em or not.

The Powers of Congress.

The United States is a government of enumerated powers. Congress, and the other two branches of the federal government, can only exercise those powers given in the Constitution.

There is a list in that link of the specific powers and duties of the fed gov't. ALL OTHERS ARE RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.

You have to understand that this goes to the very heart of the founding of this country. It is ingrained in our society. Like it or not, that is the way it is, and the way it has been for over 200 years. And that is held very closely and very dearly to most American's.

Anecdotal evidence? As a man of science, which I assume you are, you should know better.

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anecdotal evidence | Define Anecdotal evidence at Dictionary.com

What is Anecdotal Evidence?

The Anecdotal Fallacy

I gave you facts, I gave you a report, you give me stories. Please.

[Steve Conner]

'Scuse me.
I was looking for the restroom.
Can someone point me in the correct direction?

Sure, but it will cost you $200.

Things that people hold dear tend to change. That's the way the world is.
The difference between an anecdote and a report is... What exactly? I can find you any number of "reports" on controlled demolition of the WTC, but that doesn't make them credible.

[J M Fahey]

Itīs easy: any and all data that backs what you are trying to "prove", is a solid, scientific report; any data which contradicts your pet views is "anecdote" , "just a nice story".

I'm not trying to "convince" our dear friend Hasserl of nothing at all, itīs pointless.
As pointless as trying to convince a 10 year old of, say, taking a bath or cleaning his room, while he runs around, with hands covering his ears and yelling "NANANANA! NANANANA! I CANīT HEAR YOU !!!!"

Iīll simply challenge some of his most outrageous and biased assertions , simply for the benefit of others which may be reading these posts.

Iīm not interested in the futile task of "winning an Internet discussion".

The Urban Dictionary Urban Dictionary: internet argument has an interesting definition:

1. internet argument

This is something that idiots do online when they are bored and / or have no friends.

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics... Even if you win, you're still retarded."

A true quote of what an internet argument is.

[hasserl]

Sure, but it will cost you $200.

Things that people hold dear tend to change. That's the way the world is.
The difference between an anecdote and a report is... What exactly?

A good point, a report could be nothing but a collection of anecdotes. On the other hand, a report can also consist of facts and/or data. Like the one I linked.

I can find you any number of "reports" on controlled demolition of the WTC...

Yeah, I'm sure David Schwab can too.

[hasserl]

Itīs easy: any and all data that backs what you are trying to "prove", is a solid, scientific report; any data which contradicts your pet views is "anecdote" , "just a nice story".

I'm not trying to "convince" our dear friend Hasserl of nothing at all, itīs pointless.
As pointless as trying to convince a 10 year old of, say, taking a bath or cleaning his room, while he runs around, with hands covering his ears and yelling "NANANANA! NANANANA! I CANīT HEAR YOU !!!!"

Iīll simply challenge some of his most outrageous and biased assertions , simply for the benefit of others which may be reading these posts.

Iīm not interested in the futile task of "winning an Internet discussion".

The Urban Dictionary Urban Dictionary: internet argument has an interesting definition:

Ad Hominem much?

You're challenging my "outrageous and biased assertions", but all I was doing was challenging someone elses outrageous and biased assertions. So where were you then? Oh, you only challenge outrageous and biased assertions when they don't align with your own outrageous and biased positions? Oh, ok?

The Urban Dictionary has another interesting definition:

1. hypocrite

(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.

(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.

(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.

[big_teee]

You Guys have Proved my Point.
When you Pit Right Against Left.
You Don't Get anything Resolved, you get a Bunch of Aggravation, and Rhetoric!
Good Luck with That.
T

[Chuck H]

hasserl, you gotta go easy man. You'll get an ulcer. I'm not taking sides, but I know better than to tell David to chill. He can go to the end of eternity in a debate. As noted, this isn't going to be resolved with any realization to the other party with "Wow, I never saw it that way before. Your absolutely right." So what IS the end goal??? It's one thing to make your point or even answer to it when questioned. It's another to go on and on, often bordering on antagonistic. Everyone loses.