the state could not do numbers that claimed loss of money or productivity for cigarettes, obesity, etc. unless the state claimed ownership of you and the frutis of your labors!!!!!!!!!!!!

that they report this and justify this, is just that most have learned to pretend that they are part of the stae, and part owners too. so when they see loses, they no longer realize that they are owned, and the loses can only be determined against a base line of behavior.

that is, they are upset that some of their cattle deny them X amount of productivity by having their own wishes. like breedinb bulls for docility so as not to hurt the other animals adn reduce what they own and can own, and can achieve.

the change occured when personel offices became human resources.

if i smoke and die 20 years early. we as a society lose nothing. absolutely zero. why? because I OWN MYSELF… which is why i can work for someone, i own me, and i can contract my own slavery to someone else. when i die, there is no loss to the state.

but if the state owns me, and i smoke, then i will be givign back to the state less than i could. since the state paid for my schooling and training, they want their investment back. so, they compare what they are putting in to what they are getting out.

and guess what?

people living their own way, do not maximize their productivity, their taxes, and basically ownership that is being expanded by it.

here is the way to understand it.

liberals use the fact that we do not want to accept the limitiations of our times to create disatisfaction with now, and the desire to move to the future faster.

such a thing is impossble..

the only way that one in state can promise an outcome is by having control of the means of that outcome.

when they promise things to us, and we accept, we are giving permission to them to take our lives.

think about it.

we give permission for them to change the future
they can only do that by controllign us, or then admit that they cant control the future
so, ipso facto, we sold ourselves to a slaver for the promise of a future to arrive faster, which can never happen. it is what it is when it happens, faster or slower, its the future. its like trying to get ahead of a treadmill by running faster.

so, we are now all owned and all slaves, and the rest is the stae consolidating and mking permanent that hold,. and we are again, more than once removed from the real argumetn

yup they are dummies…
only dummies can play the geniuses that way.

i speak to common people, and of course if i did explain it better (As you did), i would be lambasted for assuming people are stupid and my post being too long.

i tried to be simple in passing, so i can get to the meat of my point which was that how we decide what to do to reshape the graph, is the real argument here, not the fact that they are studying or learning. we are used to now avoiding the conclusions by excising facts, rather than change the outcome.

on another note.
i have a MUCH better explanation as to why we have cancer. a top stem cell physician is working with me to put it together. suffice it to say that the blue print model is dead. and htat cancer has a purpose, and so on.

way way way way way too much to put even a short thing here. just one email between myself adn the phds is mroe than 11 pages typed. and has cross refernces and such.

just remember.
the failure of the stuff is not the math or the people who can use the math betsy. the failure is in people using their superior intelligence and other things to play games wiht the math so that people of lesser knowlege cant choose. thats just a special high faluting form of lying and fraud. since end justifies the means now, its as acceptable as lysenkoism was.

our last vote cut the last chords tying the population to reality.

Because you tried to switch the argument to imply that anyone was suggesting having testing every day, when the topic is, basically, not breaking a system that is working better than any other on earth.

Right now, we can choose when we do our tests. For now.

Suddenly, now that the gov’t is looking into controling healthcare, it’s becoming acceptable to virtually assure a death rate of over one in two thousand. (I’m sure some small fraction of the women who are diagnosed before 50 will still be found out in time to survive.)

None of us are talking about cost-benefit being bad– annoyingly, even the folks making this outrageous suggestion, which is outside of their fields, aren’t talking about cash. They’re phrasing it in terms of emotional impact.

Just makes you sick, don’t it?

And this contradicts anything I said, how?

It doesn’t, of course; it’s implicit in what I said.

tnxplant: “What concerns me is that my ability to decide any of this could be eliminated under a state-run system …”

Exactly … except that there’s no “could” about it; your freedom will be eliminated under a state system.

Where do they want to go? Well, between the various nationalizations that have taken place so far, and Fannie and Freddie and, thus, now the Federal government owning 80% of mortgages in this country, and the immanent government takeover of the 18% of the economy represented by the health care industry, the government will own or control roughly 48% of the economy—48%, and they haven’t even gotten started on the Energy sector!

They will use their control over health care to regulate and control virtually every aspect of our lives because—they will argue—how we live our lives, our “lifestyles,” the choices we make to have children or not and how many, to exercise or not, eat junk food or not, get overweight or not, drink or not, smoke or not, own a gun or not, all effect our health and thus health care costs, as does our age and stage of life (with our genetic profile soon to come as a major determinant)—age and stage which will henceforward determine our access to care and how much of it we get–and if we want Federal health care coverage—soon to be, designedly, “the only game in town,” we had better conform our lives to the dictates of the government’s regulators.

They are just getting started dealing with the “Education crisis,” but so far they have cut the many private lenders completely out of the student load business, and, henceforward, all student loans will come directly from the government, which will set their terms. In addition, the federal government has recently unveiled a plan to forgive such loans, if a young person works for the government for 10 years—control and indentured servitude anyone?

Similarly “Cap and Trade” is not really about saving the planet—which AGW and climate guru Al Gore said in a TV interview the other day, has a core temperature of “millions of degrees” like the Sun (in reality, temperatures at Earth’s core are estimated to be between 5,000 and 10,000 degrees Celsius)—but about controlling our access to Energy and it’s cost. Again, a way to control any aspect of our lives that involves Energy, which is virtually all of them—what kinds of cars we drive and how many, to where, when and how far and fast we drive, what energy supplies we have access to and at what cost, what particular home appliances we have, how we configure and maintain our houses—even if we can sell them or not if they don’t meet government energy standards–and what temperature we set our home thermostat at.

Like the spider Shelob in the “Lord of The Rings,” Obama & Co. are trying to inject their poison into us to paralyze us, building a spider web to entrap us, to squeeze and constrain us, to dictate our every move, and, ultimately, to suck us dry of our life’s blood, and in Obama we have our very own hypnotic, silver-tongued “Saruman the Wise.”

With the information I have today, I might then have chosen to do watchful waiting rather than have the biopsy. That said, I do believe that individual women should be able to choose at what age and how often to have mammograms.

Ilíon said: “you are free to spend out-of-pocket to purchase more health-care than you had contracted via the insurance policy”. I agree.

Here in my area a screening mammogram costs around $100. Surely many, if not most, women can pay for that themselves if insurance doesn’t. How many Starbucks visits, cable TV packages, cell phone fees, or manicures does that work out to?

What concerns me is that my ability to decide any of this could be eliminated under a state-run system (unless I become a member of Congress, a Hollywood star, or a professional sports figure, none of which is going to happen).