Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rightturnsonly

  1. When is the country bankrupt? Any deficit spending to me is a sign of bankruptcy.
  2. I think a thread BlgO Vs. CharlesPonzi would be cool.

    Can you arrange a read only thread where they could respond to each other. Maybe you could title it:

    "Let's get ready to rummmmbllllllllle!"

  3. I don't know that you solved anything. A "conservative" non-governmental action can be viewed as being POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL depending on the person judging it. Same to be said about "liberal" government action. I think you said yourself that POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, and NEUTRAL are subjective. You also ignore that the way you describe "conservative", the "conservative" is forced to take a "liberal" action by the "liberal" having already performed a series of "liberal" actions that go against the "conservative" stance. Bush's wars are a good example of this, but so is the left's gun control fetish. Not just political, but in life, each of us has different levels of how we adhere to the (I'm stealing this from Star Trek) "prime directive", to interfere or not to interfere. One is "liberal" and one is "conservative". To tie our two discussions together, since every particle pulls or repulses off of every other particle in the universe, a case could be made that everything someone else does directly affects me so I have the right to interfere with what they are doing. Obviously no one is THAT 'liberal-minded'.
  4. I think I misled you. I was thinking, at the hypothetical edge of the universe, beyond that edge, would gravity exist whether attractive or repulsive. Same goes for any space between particles within the edge of the universe. Is the universe sending out a gravitaional force in a direction where there is nothing to attract or repulse?
  5. Kind of reminds me of me, and more heat (like nuclear power) CAUSING more CO2 in the atmosphere rather than the other way around, except your not alone. I think it is possible gravity might be repulsive. Here's a question. If you have an object, whether repulsive gravity or attractive gravity, and a space with nothing in it, is that object's gravity present in that space? I guess it is kind of like the tree falling in the woods and there is no one around does it make a sound kind of question.
  6. So, we shouldn't even bother to think about how we might devise even a hypothetical experiment that would isolate the effects of gravity whether repulsive or attractive so that we could observe two particles either getting closer or further apart?
  7. I was thinking, if gravity IS repulsive why can't we devolop an experiment to prove it? I mean theoretically, shouldn't two particles on a parallel course get either further or closer together, assuming no outside gravitational influences.
  8. All your problems above are solved by people like you starting businesses and not being so unbridled. Don't be so greedily profiteer. Offer your insurance to anyone who wants to purchase it. Offer your insurance at low low prices. Don't profit gouge. If someone wishes to pay you twice as much for your insurance, reject them. Perhaps the reason nobody has tried, is you believe you would fall to the same temptations; but I think it is the part instinct and the part laziness that tells us it is easier to "control" or "compete unfairly" rather than "cooperate" with them.
  9. The government IS the middleman if the government is going to collect money into a pool and pay it to the hospitals on your behalf. You are saying that government would be less greedy about it. I say any philanthropic person can be less greedy about it by starting their own insurance company and being, well, NOT GREEDY. The reason this cannot work has nothing to do with how philanthropic or greedy you are, but the fact that you cannot FORCE people to pay into the pool. Government has this ability either by direct threat or indirectly by simply spending more money than in has collected into the pool by printing more money and devalueing ALL money when spent. Your moral dilema Dr. JoeB, is that you have to either let go of your disparagement of greedy insurance companies if theoretically they could be run in a less greedy manner and that it isn't fair competition when government has two unfair advantages; in otherwords, government can basically cheat. It is not a lassie-fair, free market system because people like you don't want to do what is necessary to create your own business and compete on even terms thereby proving it is greedy CEO's causing the rising healthcare costs. Instead you want government to enter the market on a playing field tilted in governments favor. If you could guarantee choice to the people into paying into a government health insurance system by government not directly coercing payment or not simply printing more money when the pool is dry I could agree. Unfortunately, political integrity is at an all time low. Mr. Maroun will be a very poor man if anyone is injured or killed when the bridge collapses. He might even go to jail. What did this have to do with government run health-care. Is government trying to force him to demolish his bridge so government can reject his permit to build a new one so government can build one there? If government wanted to compete, it would just build another bridge somewhere else. Perhaps a chunnel. Government doesn't have to be so manipulative.
  10. Are you trying to say that the insurance industry as it is now, is a sham industry? If in theory one cannot start their own insurance company to counterbalance the effects of crooked CEO's that you are blaming for high healthcare costs, then your judgement of those CEO's is unwarrented. or are you trying to say the "idea" of insurance is a sham. If you are, then I don't know how you can sit and justify a government run insurance system without looking like a hypocrite. I guess you will have to modify the definitions of "justify", "government", and "insurance". Again, you are dancing around my statement. Theoretically, if progressive people starting their own less greedy insurance companies still fails to lower healthcare costs, then your admonition of current insurance companies is unwarranted. You need to resolve this hypocrisy for yourself. Quote from a famous man:
  11. I see right through you Dr. JoeB. You are skirting around my questions. You would feel much better if you just confront and put it out front for all to see instead of trying to spin it into something it is not. I will take your excuses to mean you either do not recognize the above quote as hypocrisy, or you do recognize the hypocrisy and are trying to justify it.
  12. If you do not beleive your problem with the system can be solved by some altruistic person or people starting competing insurance company(s) that do not do all the things you blame the insurance companies of doing that caused your problem, then your criticism of those insurance companies is unwarrented. I suppose it is easier to force and control people to your will rather than compete with them on the playing field called the "free market". Why do you believe there is no free market system in the USA? Who is it that is putting up the roadblocks to you starting a competing insurance company? Would you find it hard to hold customers, if customers knew you were using money out of the pool to pay everyday claims for people that put in nothing or next to nothing? Is it right for government to require more paperwork for the private insurance companies and then turn around and say "government can do it without all the paperwork"? Why don't you see that hypocrisy?
  13. Like I said, until you confront the "why you need to" take from those who have, in order to give to those who don't have, proponents of a government run health insurance program are being dishonest. Because the way I see it, the answer to the greed you see in a "free market" system is to start a company and be less greedy. Even if you were able to get a government run insurance program to pay hospital bills for the needy, private insurance companies will still run up healtcare costs through malpractice insurance. I would predict the government would probably start limiting how much "pain and suffering" is really worth because the reason for high malpractice insurance is based on large awards. Of course government, when it has full control can just say, "Okay, now no one can sue".
  14. What part of running your own business do you not understand? Don't use a Ponzi scheme as your business model. Don't pay yourself, the CEO, millions of dollars. Don't use money to buy a large luxurious homes for yourself. Keep your income low and live in assisted living housing. Everything you and your employees take is potential money that could go to paying a claim, so hire only people who will work for minimum wage. If you cannot make your insurance company run the way you think insurance companies should be run, then your reasons for them causing the increase in healthcare costs is unwarrented. People like you cloud the real truth behind a government run healthcare system. You refuse to acknowledge that the true reason for a government run system is that you need the people with enough money to pay for the people without enough money. You don't acknowledge the unfair advantage government has, by saying it is providing competition. The ability to force people to pay by taxing and the ability to simply print more money when the pool goes dry creates an uneven playing field. It is dishonest not to acknowledge those points and cheating when used in an effort to squeeze out private insurance companies. Your whole arguement revolves around some immorality of the behaviour of private insurance companies that capitalism and the free market give you the opportunity to correct by starting your own company and not modeling that behaviour. I truly believe both private and public insurance can co-exist but until you acknowledge the truth of what has to happen in order to carry it out a public run insurance scheme, I cannot support it. Perhaps goverment could pay for everyones healthcare by printing new money and put into circulation by giving it to the hospitals instead of banks. It seems like a solution that would kill two stones for the liberal-minded.
  15. Dr.Joeb does not believe that giving special care to premature infants should cost millions of dollars anywhere. It is profiteering that is the devil here. Doctors in Canada get paid about 70 percent of US doctors. They do not complain. The high cost of medicine in the USA is not because doctors gouge. They are working class people just like most of us. Generally, cost of our inadequate health care costs twice as much as the Canadians health care system for a host of other reasons like gouging by Pharmaceutical companies, Insurance companies, and a host of other parasites pretending to give health care. Canadians get health care for everyone unlike in the USA. Comparing health care costs in the USA to Cuban health care costs is like comparing the cost of gasoline in Venezuela to the cost of gasoline in the USA. Venezuelans were paying 17 to 20 cents per gallon when USA citizens were paying three dollars or more for a gallon of gas. Do you think that the Venezuelans were getting inferior gasoline compare to USA citizens because of the cheap price? Dr.Joeb doubts it. And Dr.Joeb doubts Cubans were getting inferior health care because of its low cost. The World Health Organization (WHO) agrees. Read the quoted message that Dr.Joeb received from WHO. Every problem you might have with an insurance company, if you were as altruistic as you claim to be, is solved by starting your own competing insurance company. Really, I do not understand how you could lose. As far as pharmaceutical companies price gouging, I believe government through courts and the FDA has just as much blame in that for creating the atmosphere for price-gouging to thrive through over-regulating people trying to help people. Through relieving the consumer of taken responsibility for their choice of healthcare, they have in fact taken away the consumers right to chose and assume risk with an insistance on a "zero risk" society. That "zero risk" society comes with a cost that consumers have no choice but to pay for.
  16. That is the question. IF Cuba put 1 million dollars worth of Pesos toward saving a pre-mature baby, given the so called efficeincy of their system, compared to the U.S. they should have either a "higher survival rate given the same care and weeks pre-mature" or "they have the ability to save even younger pre-mature births than the U.S." or both. I do agree with you that Doctors shouldn't be driving around in expensive vehicles and living in expensive homes and whatever luxuries they have at the expense of the sick. I also do not beleive people in Cuba have the luxury of a court system that will award them millions of pesos for a mistake. That cost is also incorporated into healthcare costs in the U.S. through government and insurance further widening the gap you see.
  17. Sorry Dr. JoeB. I thought it was the question of pre-mature babies that are allowed to die in Cuba that the U.S. spends money to save that was being raised; and we do spend money on saving pre-mature babies in this country that adds to everyones medical expenses. The rates of pre-mature babies isn't really the question. The question is the amount of effort that each coutry will put into saving them. It seems plausible that the U.S. would lead Cuba in how early a child can be born and survive; and that kind of statistic does not come without a monetary cost associated with it. A monetary cost that is factored into everyones healthcare through government and insurances. There are very few people who can afford that million dollar price tag that can come with such a birth, even in the U.S.
  18. C'mon Dr. Joe, you don't mean that. This is common with most presidents isn't it, blame the predecessor? I would have to put the nine eleven attacks on the previous president. Anyway, if that is the case about bad government, I am curious when you think the repercussions of good government always turn up?
  19. Acknowledged. It causes cancer in a majority of people. Are there people that smoked most of their life to succomb to something other than cancer? Do people that smoke marijuana have just as high of percentage of cancer? There are people who have probably forgot more than I ever knew about smoking, but it seems probable that all the extra ingredients cigarette companies put in their product beyond the tobacco might be the cause of cancer. I do not discount the reason a person smokes could be a contributer. Anyway, it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason/s without many negative effects. It probably doesn't matter if a few people did not grow as much because it was suggested. I must have misread, because I could swear I remembered you saying you thought the universe was still creating. Just increasing the amount of space between the matter, not the amount of matter. Perhaps black holes do not really exist. I was thinking how repulsive gravity might create one somewhere. Without really understanding it, it seems like attractive gravity leads to a situation that cannot change, where repulsive gravity might give a black hole a chance to be seen again. Did I ask and you answered me about what the opposite of the center of gravity is?
  20. Something Dr. JoeB said caused rightturnsonly to ask this. Is it possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason? Are there negative effects of doing the right thing for the wrong reason? As far as repulsive gravity goes. Dr. JoeB thought that the universe was still creating. Does Dr. JoeB believe there is a cause/effect relationship between this continual creation and the connective repulsive gravity associated with it, with what transpires here on Earth?
  21. Okay. That wasn't a whole lot of help. Rightturnsonly was trying to understand how repulsive gravity would explain what the world sees as tides. At one time, Rightturnsonly understood how the tides were explained by attractive gravity and will have to refresh his memory. When he does, he will keep in mind "what if gravity is repulsive". So far, Rightturnsonly believes Dr. JoeB's stand by, is to say the rest of the universe besides the Earth, moon, and sun has some sort of equilibrium effect when talking about the tides, where as the attractive theory of gravity pretty much limits the cause of the tides to the Earth, moon and Sun as the largest contributers.
  22. Has Dr. JoeB. pondered how the ocean tides would be explained with the theory of repulsive gravity?
  23. Sounds like if too many people use this BESTLOT software and all play to win $5 the lottery would go broke or the lottery board will lower the $5 payout to maybe $2. Some people might say that Dr. JoeB is out there trying to be a capitalist like the rest of us by selling this software. Rightturnsonly believes Dr. JoeB worked for big government and is secretly continuing to work for big government by enticing people to play the lottery, because the only big winner in a lottery is big government. Big government NEEDS big winners so that it can tax the winnings at a higher percentage rate. To Dr. JoeB's defense, his BESTLOT software has the potential to create multiple winners, thereby having to split the jackpot, thereby reducing big government's take through a decreasing tax rate to multiple winners; but on the other hand Dr. JoeB wants to limit how many copies of the software he will sell. Rightturnsonly likes his repulsive gravity and spaceship thoughts much better.
  24. It does seem that if gravity is and has always been repulsive that it allows for a more subtle beginning to the universe instead of an explosive fury.
  25. Rightturnsonly is sorry to keep Dr. JoeB waiting, Rightturnsonly's job took priority the last couple of weeks. Rightturnsonly does not agree with that last sentence about the repulsive concept of gravity. Infinities are a nature of existence and how the universe behaves BEYOND the quantum particle level will always be a stumbling block to those who put science above God. That being said, Rightturnsonly was pondering about Dr. JoeB's theory of repulsive gravity. If gravity where repulsive, what might it feel like near the center of the Earth or any sufficiently large object? Would Rightturnsonly's body/cells feel the compression of the effect of the repulsive gravity of the Earth all around him, regardless of being in contact with any object near the center? Rightturnsonly was pondering about the theory of the big bang if gravity is repulsive and stumbled upon a "what do we mean" problem. It had to do with acceleration and decceleration. Objects do not just obtain a velocity without expereincing one these, do they? Unlike giving an object a push or a bump, the repulsive force of gravity is constant. What do we mean? If the acceleration of gravity on an object(Rightturnsonly is thinking galaxies) at the begining of the big bang is 10, then after a time it goes to 5, then 1, then .1, then .01 then, and so forth as the universe expands. Is it said to be deccelerating even though it can never reach 0 since gravity is repulsive, and would always be in a state of acceleration? Perhaps something like, the repulsive force added up through the distance between the objects always gives the same result and the two objects share/experience the same repulsive force between each other regardless of distance.
  • Create New...