Originally posted by Frohickey
Two years?
How long was Kennedy's pledge to land a man on the moon when he announced it to when it was actually achieved? It was more than two years, if memory serves correctly.
Time to get away from the instant gratification. Scientific progress and engineering requires multiple cycles of development and experimentation and refinement. A manned mission to Mars and a permanent presence on the Moon would be great.
I could see IBM PowerPC G8s being made on the low gravity of the moon.
Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
[BWhile the advances in day to day technology was great, I don't think that we are in the same place to be able to achieve that success. Kennedy won both the Electorial college and the popular vote. By most counts Kennedy was a populist that gained the support of people through thought and deed. It can be said that Kennedy looked to gain a positive world opinion.[/B]
The 1960 election was the closest in American history. John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon by less than 120,000 popular votes. Many Nixon supporters believe that Chicagos political leaders tampered with the ballots to give JFK a very narrow victory in Illinois. Henry Bryd carried Mississippi and recived electoral votes in Oklahoma and Alabama. For some strange reason Oklahoma cast one electoral vote for Barry Goldwater to be Vice-President.
Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
For me I would rather see that money spent on better health care for all citizens. I would rather see better the wages of legal residents so that companies DON'T have to import "slave" labor through imigration loopholes. I would rather see it go to debt reduction.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to live to see men on the moon again. But not before issues at home are taken care of first.
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Frohickey-
Your link and statements do nothing to dispute his statement that Kennedy "won both the Electorial college and the popular vote".
What exactly are you trying to argue?
Originally posted by Frohickey
Disputes his characterization that Kennedy was popular, eh?
Originally posted by Frohickey
Pay for your own health care. Get a job.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I am self-employed and run a successful small business, yet health care costs are eating me alive. Once again, you provide more evidence that you are missing a vital organ. I suggest you get a heart.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I am self-employed and run a successful small business, yet health care costs are eating me alive. Once again, you provide more evidence that you are missing a vital organ. I suggest you get a heart.
Originally posted by Frohickey
What does me having a heart have to do with you stealing money from my wallet to pay for YOUR health care?
Take care of yourself, I'll take care of myself. Maybe I have an old grandma that I don't want going off into a old folks home, and that would take a sizeable chunk of MY money that you think should go to YOU for YOUR health care.
How would you like if it I said that you should sell your successful small business so that I can keep my grandma at home wtih a nursing staff?
Originally posted by mactastic
Oh was that your wallet I've been stealing from? Pardon me.
By that logic, you've been stealing from ME every time you drive on the public roads, fly on a plane, turn on your electricity or water, visit a public library, and any of a host of other ventures that are funded in any part by taxpayer funds.
Originally posted by idkew
You use poor examples to make your point.
The reason roads are tax payer funded is because this is the only solution. It is not possible to have roads only funded by private citizens larger than a driveway or private drive in a neighborhood. Roads, by there very nature, are to be used by everyone. It is porhibitively expensive to place a tool booth on every single corner of every single road in every single city...
Once again, water and electricity are funded and contorlled by the government because there is not room for the infrastructure for many different small companies in every town. Now, if you want to pump your own water or make your own electricity, you are more than legally welcome to, it is just easier and less expensive to go with the governemt one. Besides, the gov does not subsidise my water, gas and electric, it subsidises those whoc an not afford it.
Airlines are being helped by the gov due to an act of war. This has little to do with healthcare. If you really think about it, you do get free healthcare when it comes to war, join the army and fight.
Public Libraries are around because of a simple reason, they are not profitable. The only provate libraries I can think of are college libraraies, which are necessary to colleges. Without a public library, we would not have any besides colleges and universities, which are only available to a select few.
Originally posted by mactastic
Hey, if you want to buy the land and build your own roads, you are legally welcome to. And yes, the government does subsidize YOUR water and gas and electricity in the form of tax incentives to those industries. When the airlines were going belly up, who footed the bill? And let me tell you, it wasn't soley because of 9/11, the airlines were getting hit hard before then. Who's going to help the electric industry 'modernize' those lines that caused last years blackout? That's right, you and I. And who paid for the industries failure to maintain the lines they do have? Right again.
We're not arguing that the roads (or health care) aren't meant to be used by everyone. But the roads are subsidized by the government precisely because it is impractical to have everyone pay for what they use. Think about it. If you live in a small town and you walk to most of your destinations, you are paying for those who live in the LA or SF area who put 100+ miles on their cars each and every day. I'm comparing that to Frohickey's argument that we should only pay for what we use in terms of health care benefits. Plus we are getting the benefit of economy of scale. If you only need a few gallons of water a day, would you rather throw in your money with the general public and get a deal, or would you rather pay the price of what a couple of gallons of water costs to extract (I'll give you a hint, installing a well or aquaduct to bring you around 200 gallons a day costs significantly more on a per-gallon basis than an aquaduct or well that is bringing in hundreds of thousands of gallons a day.) So why not apply that logic to health care if he is so willing to apply it to things like roadways and waterways etc.
And even you admit that public libraries are there soley because they benefit society at large.
Originally posted by mactastic
My point is that health care would be better served, and cheaper overall, if we could eliminate the HMO's and get a deal by pooling our resources LIKE WE DO WITH MANY OTHER INDUSTRIES. Is that clear enough?
Originally posted by idkew
you do realize that insurance does exactly what you are speaking of, don't you? that is why you pay monthly instead of only when you need insurance. the company takes a risk (you) and sometimes their gamble wins, sometimes it loses. Premiums are based on the amount of risk.
The only difference between insurance, and what i can gather you want, since you can't seem to stay calm and make a coherrent response, is that in your method of heathcare administration, everyone gets healthcare, no matter if yhey pay in or not. is that what you mean? the rich pay for the poor? is it right/fair for the haves to be legally forced to care for the have nots/prople who don't want to work?