Thursday, August 13, 2009

While On The Subject Of Ethernet Adapters ...

I received a question about the ethernet adapter I sell on eBay today ... here's the question and my response:

Dear fixyourthinking,

Thanks very much. I live in Australia, I just want to make sure that this will work my PowerPC Mac os 10.4.11. Can you confirm this? And total price with shipping to Australia too? Thanks Anthony

p.s Unrelated, looks like Obama is getting heavily attacked for the proposed healthcare reforms.

~ eBay ID: xxxxxxx

It absolutely positively will work for any Mac PPC or Intel 9.2.2 & higher - I'll make sure of it.

Cost is $30.00 total for shipping anywhere outside the USA.

Expect delivery (at that rate) within 6 business days.

The problem with the healthcare issue is people like myself who choose to be uninsured while young healthy (and medically verified with regular checkups) will be forced to contribute to this program. Why should I, being healthy and working hard to remain so; support a smoker, a drinker, an obscenely obese person, or a person who is a prostitute. I have none of those vices. Is their behavior my responsibility to pay for? Don't get me wrong ... We need reform and it has to start somewhere ... Both democrats and republicans are unwilling to even try ... They just want re-election ... They think the way to get re-elected is to show their party that they were the polar opposite of the other party.


Paul Douglas said...

Speaking as a Briton, we have a saying for your issue with socialised (Nationalised) healthcare (And we use a similar saying for other public funded services like the world's best broadcaster, the BBC):

Your contribution pays for the services you DO use. Someone else's pays for the services you don't.

The NHS is a valuable and wonderful institution here in the UK, that prevents the long-term unemployed, minimum wage workers and so on from having to suffer ill health purely because they cannot afford insurance. Government exists so that we can all work together to ensure that society is fair for us all. It doesn't matter if some people have vices and need healthcare for that, the fact is many more people who genuinely need it would have NO healthcare if wasn't for socialised medicine.

There is no reasonable case against it. To oppose socialised healthcare is selfish and greedy. And one day, maybe that opponent will need help, but have no insurance. Let's see how they feel then. The problem with so many of the opponents of a social healthcare system in America is a simple one: they have no empathy. The world is not the same for everyone, not as easy for the underclass as it is for the fatcat elitist Republicans (Tories in the UK) who have mountains of money stashed away in Trusts, powerful friends and Ivy-League educations.

Socialised medicine is an acceptance of that fact.

FYT said...

Thank you for your perspective Paul ...

I assure you, even if my reasons sound selfish, they aren't ... Neither is that subjective opinion.

You must understand that you are heavily taxed ... so heavily so that entrepreneurship is discouraged.

I honestly do think we need something ... but it has more to do in our case with illegal immigration and corporate pharmeceutical greed than an empathy situation.

The USA is surprisingly self sustained when honesty prevails in a capitalist market.

We are NOT socialist and the UK has little to no problems with massive illegal immigration, but you do have strict beneficial to the populous regulations on corporations and pharmeceutical companies.

It's not as easy an issue as just "adding socialized medicine" but it's not as complicated as passing a whole bunch of oppressive laws either.

I would gauranty that the entire health care system in the world could be paid for by international government surpluses, stopping illegal immigration, legalizing marijuana (I do not smoke or consume alcohol or drugs), and getting federal panels such as the FDA to approve reasonable price structures for medicine.

The USA is based on taking pride in yourself and caring for others well being as long as they have the same mutual respect ... that is essentially the definition of the term "liberty". Americans have an unalienable right to pursue life,liberty, and happiness. Our constitution says so. No contract the citizens of the UK have with their government, says such.

Paul Douglas said...

There's no shortage of entrepreneurship in the UK, which can be most simply demonstrated by the number and variety of businesses which have appeared on the BBC's "Dragon's Den" (The format is appearing in America as "Shark's Tank").

The American opposition to socialism is a stance which makes no sense. It was born in McCarthy's Communist witch hunt, and fueled by tensions with the USSR during the Cold War. Whilst the USSR was socialist, socialism is not Communism. Communism is a kind of socialism.

Socialism is the belief that people in a society should work together and contribute fairly to better their lives and those of the society around them. Socialism doesn't have to oppose any of the tenets of capitalism and entrepreneurship. The US, one of the greatest countries in the world and amongst my favourites, was founded on religious freedom and, more importantly, the principle that all people are born equal and deserve the same fair chances and opportunities.

That is socialism.

Your response makes it clear you accept something has to be done to get healthcare to the US's needy, whilst saying we have to ensure the funds are not spent on people who are not contributing to society in the same way as legal citizens. Socialism doesn't oppose that view, and there are plenty of ways to ensure that the free healthcare offered in Obama's public option only goes to those who deserve it.

Yes, there will be teething problems, but if the US does not act fast to offer public healthcare, you could be staring down the barrel of a disaster. The simplest solution is to get the option out there, see where the problems are, and then simply update the policy to fix any flaws discovered in the real world. Surely it is more important to get affordable healthcare to the US's poor than to spend time arguing over how to prevent the system from being gamed when every system, private or public, can and will be gamed to some extent?

Incidentally, whilst I am also neither a smoker or a drug user, I too am unopposed to governments like the US (On a State level) and the UK legalising marijuana in order to tax it. People are going to use it anyway, as we can see, so we might as well make it as safe as possible and use it to help fund services that benefit society.

Plus, it might mean fewer people smoke the far worse tobacco, which can only be good as tobacco smoking is a stinking and deadly habit.

FYT said...

More good comments Paul ...

On a related note ...

I'm opposed to tobacco use, excessive alchohol consumption, and psychactive drugs. Key word is "I'm"

I believe these vices should be taxed as luxuries.

I believe in everyone contributing their fair share which I consider 20% of their income.

I believe marijuana is relatively harmless ... We have a huge problem with DUI ... I've been discussing with my wife and family lately ... When do you ever hear of DUM?

Anonymous said...

Hmmm.. I am not sure the "I don't want to pay for someone else's x" argument is the best. I live in Texas. We pay more in federal income tax than we get in federal money. You live in South Carolina and as a state get more in federal funds then you pay in income tax. So, we are paying for your roads and bridges. Why should I do that?

The reality is you as a person would not pay for anyone else's insurance because your state doesn't cover it's own expenses as is. Interestingly enough it is the states that, with few exception, that voted for Obama and his health care that will pay for the cost and not you.

FYT said...


I will put it this way ... If I do have to "pay in" ... I will certainly consume. At the moment I hardly do anything. I happen to be privy to a comprehensive 4 year check up for life.

That aside ... I will do more and get MY money's worth.

I assume this will happen with a lot of people ... even further burdening our system.

Instead of bringing prices down ... It will gave the same affect as the lottery on education. If colleges charge more they get more state funds ... Driving the cost of education higher for everyone that falls just below the top of their class and just above the income lows ... Which is 60% of those who attend.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry my point was unclear. Your state doesn't currently pay for itself. It depends on other stats for basic services. If the federal government decides to offer a healthcare plan your state will not be impacted as you don't cover basic services as it is. Simply put, you wouldn't be able to drive from city to city if not for the welfare of other states. If other states decide to offer healthcare for yours you should thank them rather than complain.

FYT said...

Why should I thank anybody for taking $600-$950 of my income?

This isn't paid for by others... It would be mandatory if you are uninsured ... The expected premium is between $50-$90 a month.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the current healthcare proposals on the table are not really designed to put forth an actual healthcare system but rather to spark discussion. I'm not sure if it is diabolical or ingenious to propose measures that are so far "out there" that people are examining the multi-hundred page proposal in fine detail so they can pick it apart. This has promoted dialog and discussion, a lot of which has been fairly sensationalistic.

Ultimately, I think that the Democrats are trying to get from Point A to Point C by proposing Point G. They know that no one is going to go for the Point G proposal, so they will "compromise" and settle for what they wanted in the first place--Point C.

No matter how you slice it, Britain is incredibly heavily taxed, so they can never be an acceptable model for any reforms in U.S. healthcare. And by the way, Paul, Republicans are conservative, not elitist. Also, I don't think anyone views Britain as a "Socialist" nation. It DOES matter if people have vices because they put an unfair burden on others. That is why I am applauding anti-smoking legislation in businesses, communities, restaurants, etc. If you crash your car and its your fault, YOU have to pay for it. Why shouldn't healthcare be the same? Its personal responsibility.

Socialism assumes that most people truly care about the welfare of others. This kind of system would never fly in the U.S. because it IS a more self-centered society, coming from the "rugged individualism" that built the nation.

Healthcare truly DOES need reforming, however. The system as it is cannot continue and the U.S. needs to look for adaptable models from countries or systems that can be assimilated.

I think one thing that is missing from the proposed legislation is what the article is focused on--Personal Responsibliity. This not only translates into people perhaps being given incentives to take care of their own health, but also dis-incentives for people to burden the legal system with ridiculous lawsuits that jack up prices for everyone. Doctors are held to impossible expectations and are eaten alive by insurance costs to the extent that we are going to see a serious shortage of doctos in the future.

Let's come up with a system that involves taking personal responsibility for ourselves and others; national heatlthcare needs to exist on a certain level and the more fortunate DO need to help support the less fortunate for any system to work but it has got to address issues on all sides. The one about personal responsibility is one of them.

Anonymous said...

I also live in a state that pays out more in taxes than it receives from the federal government. My state is in dire financial trouble. Your state's "success" comes at the detriment of my state. That's hardly fair.

When something catastrophic happens to you (yes, even healthy people get sick or injured), and you cannot afford your medical bills it will be my tax dollars that pay for you.

FYT said...

You say "when" ... You mean "if"

and my family would cover MY bills ...

Anonymous said...

Exactly my point. As long as you personally don't have to pay, you don't care.

I'm glad you've found a way to get free physicals and that your family will pay your medical bills because you chose not to have insurance. I'm glad you live in a state that is supported by other states. I'm glad you know how to game coke-rewards and incentive programs to get free things.

I'm very glad the taxes I pay and the money I spend on goods and services are supporting you so well.

Keep up the good work! You're an inspiration and a personal hero.

FYT said...

Sarcasm usually loses a debate ...

Paul, I appreciate your dissenting opinion ...

Speaking of you ... why did you change from JensonB?