Saturday, July 7, 2012
Motives vs. results
"So my opposition to a minimum wage or government schools or agricultural price supports or bank bailouts or mandatory health insurance or mandatory retirement contributions or mandatory eating habits doesn't come from my selfishness or greed. Rather it comes from respect for my fellow human beings and a belief (not a faith) that leaving people free to choose what is best for themselves usually works out better than strangers making decisions for them..."
Motives vs. results
by Russ Roberts on July 6, 2012
in Hubris and humility
A fan of liberty writes me of her struggle of being surrounded by people with a different world-view–people who make her feel that in defending liberty, she is greedy, selfish, and uncaring. I wrote a novel on this issue–here's a shorter answer…
Are you greedy, selfish, and uncaring? A little. We all are. Even people who oppose liberty. But I don't think self-interest explains your view of the proper role of government intervention.
But it's not surprising that you worry about your motives. In our daily interactions, motives are nearly everything. I want friends and family that care about me and whose motives count me in, alongside their own concerns.
So we pay a lot of attention to motives because they're important. But the motives of strangers are much less important. For starters, by definition, it is hard to know strangers as well as my friends and family. So their motives will be much harder to read. But there is a much worse problem which is that by definition, strangers don't have much information or knowledge of my needs, desires, and dreams. They can't. They're strangers. It's hard enough for my friends and family to know me well. But strangers can't know me well. So even with the best of motives, they may not be able to help me. In fact, they may end up hurting me despite their motives. We know that we sometimes hurt our friends and family even with the best of motives because of our imperfect knowledge of who they are.
This suggests a humility for intervening in the lives of strangers. Those on the other side of the spectrum of government intervention often lack this humility. They claim to know what is best for others–what they should eat, how they should behave in the bedroom, whether they purchase health insurance, and what is the best use of other people's money. When these plans go awry, when they cause harm to those they would help, they fall back on their motives–after all, they meant well.
But when dealing with strangers, with people outside our circle of friends and family, results trump motives. Or at least they do for me. For you see, I too, have good motives. I just believe, perhaps naively, that sometimes, it is better to leave things alone than to intervene. Not always. Sometimes. We know that is true in public policy just as it is true in parenting where the motives are very powerful. Sometimes good parenting means letting children make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. Sometimes it means letting children come to grips with responsibility.
So we teach our children to drive and let them take the car. We know it's dangerous but we accept the risk. We do so not because we do not care about our children. It's just the opposite. We accept the risk because we care about them. We respect them. We want them to leave the nest and learn to fly on their own.
So my opposition to a minimum wage or government schools or agricultural price supports or bank bailouts or mandatory health insurance or mandatory retirement contributions or mandatory eating habits doesn't come from my selfishness or greed. Rather it comes from respect for my fellow human beings and a belief (not a faith) that leaving people free to choose what is best for themselves usually works out better than strangers making decisions for them.
The other day a friend of mine was defending a regulation related to smoking. I hate smoking. I've never smoked in my life. But I think people should be free to smoke if they want and I believe that private establishments–restaurants and apartment buildings and businesses–should be free to allow people to smoke on their premises. My friend doesn't. He's a great guy and knows as I do, that smoking has some very damaging health consequences. He feels very self-righteous about his quest to regulate smoking even more throughly than we currently do. Part of that self-righteousness comes from his motives. He knows they are pure and they are. He is a fine person. I respect him. He also happens to be overweight. I wonder how he would feel if I explained to him that I have been doing a lot of reading lately on diet and health and that I thought he should eat fewer carbohydrates and spend more time at the gym? I do wish he were thinner. I think it would be good for him. But I would never want to force him to change his habits and even more than that, my respect for him would keep me from even making the suggestion. I think he knows he's overweight.
He's not a close friend. He's a casual friend. With a very close friend or a sibling, I might say something about the virtues of diet and exercise. But a stranger? I can't imagine going up to a stranger on the street and lecturing him about his weight. Forcing a stranger to do something about his weight is even harder to imagine. But I don't think my motives are the issue. It's a question of respect and imperfect knowledge.
One of the points I make in The Invisible Heart is that those of us who want smaller government because we think it will make the world a better place are the allies, whether we like it or not, of purely selfish people who want smaller government in order to avoid taxes and who have no intention of giving to charity. That should give us pause. At the same time, those who care so much about others that they would run their lives for them are allied with those who would run the lives of others because of less attractive motives–for power and profit.
So don't lose any sleep over your motives. And don't let others who are no better than you are, convince you that there is something wrong with you because you don't want to use the power of the state to try to improve the lives of others. Their strategy has a very mixed track record. They are always saying this time will be different. But it is unlikely to be different because of the knowledge problem and because the other side centralizes power. And centralized power doesn't attract nice people. Just the opposite.
Both sides want to make the world a better place. We just disagree on how to get there.
http://cafehayek.com/2012/07/motives-vs-results.html
**JP** Fwd: Collection: سلالہ واقعہ اور نیٹو سپلائی
Collection: سلالہ واقعہ اور نیٹو سپلائی |
| Posted: 05 Jul 2012 09:52 PM PDT
دوستو! آج خلاف معمول کوئی واقعہ یا قصہ نہیں بیان کر رہا بلکہ اپنے جذبات کو کچھ اشعار میں تحریر کر رہا ہوں- کیا کریں کہ معامله ہی کچھ ایسا ہے کہ کچھ کہہ بھی نہیں سکتے، چپ رہ بھی نہیں سکتے- اور الفاظ ہیں کہ زبان کا ساتھ نہیں دیتے- |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Re: **JP** Pakistan kea Khalif ak new our boht bari Ghanaanoney Sazish must read
Dear brother,
You are 100% correct, i apperiate you for this topic.
I have same thinking, but please do any solution to get away this govt.
If these peoples come again, i will lost our beloved country
Dilnawaz Anwar
From: ni$ aWaN <nisar.awan98@gmail.com>
To: ""My-Diary@yahoogroups.com My-Diary@yahoogroups.com"" <My-Diary@yahoogroups.com>; Brilliant-Pakistan@yahoogroups.com; madinaway@yahoogroups.com; MasjidNabwi@yahoogroups.com; sadqayyarasolallah@yahoogroups.com; PakistanWritersClub-Riyadh@yahoogroups.com; reality b2a <Reality_B2A@yahoogroups.com>; Hannan Fawad <Fawad.Hannan@saipem.com>; joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:41 PM
Subject: **JP** Pakistan kea Khalif ak new our boht bari Ghanaanoney Sazish must read
To: ""My-Diary@yahoogroups.com My-Diary@yahoogroups.com"" <My-Diary@yahoogroups.com>; Brilliant-Pakistan@yahoogroups.com; madinaway@yahoogroups.com; MasjidNabwi@yahoogroups.com; sadqayyarasolallah@yahoogroups.com; PakistanWritersClub-Riyadh@yahoogroups.com; reality b2a <Reality_B2A@yahoogroups.com>; Hannan Fawad <Fawad.Hannan@saipem.com>; joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:41 PM
Subject: **JP** Pakistan kea Khalif ak new our boht bari Ghanaanoney Sazish must read
| |
|
Nisar Awan
The Sign of Sincerity
{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,
Yeh meri Maan ki duaayon ka assar lagta hai."}}
**JP** Daily Quran and Hadith
--
Thanks & Best regards,
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403
-- 
Thanks & Best regards,
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403
****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Digging Up Arafat ?
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
See Ohio’s warm welcome for Obama!
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Iran Derangement Syndrome
"It is also the unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community, declared in 2007 and affirmed in 2011, that Iran has abandoned any program to build nuclear weapons."
Iran Derangement Syndrome
Irrational fears stymie diplomatic success -- and shift focus from a more dangerous Pakistan
By Patrick J. Buchanan • July 6, 2012
"Iran is not seeking to have the atomic bomb, possession of which is pointless, dangerous and is a great sin from an intellectual and a religious point of view."
Thus did supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declare in February that Iran's possession of atomic weapons would be a mortal sin against Allah.
It is also the unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community, declared in 2007 and affirmed in 2011, that Iran has abandoned any program to build nuclear weapons.
Is the Ayatollah lying? Is the entire U.S. intel community wrong?
Iran's plants, at Natanz, where uranium is enriched to 5 percent, and at Fordow, where it is enriched to 20 percent–both below weapons grade–are under constant U.N. monitoring. Iran has offered to surrender its 20 percent uranium and cease enriching to that level, if the West will provide isotopes for its nuclear medicine and lift some of the more onerous sanctions.
No deal, says the United States. Iran must give up enrichment entirely and indefinitely.
This is the sticking point in the negotiations. Iran contends that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, she has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. On this, the Iranian people stand behind their government.
Should this deadlock be a cause for war?
Assume Iran did divert low-grade nuclear fuel to some secret plant to enrich it to weapons grade. The process would take months, if not years. Iran would then have to build and test an explosive device that the world would know about in hours. Iran would then have to weaponize the device.
The whole process would take longer than a year, perhaps several. We would learn about it and have time to exercise a military option long before it came to pass.
The Israelis, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, would probably have learned about it before us. And, fearing Iran more, they would not hesitate to use what they have to prevent an atom bomb in Tehran.
Comes the retort: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a certifiable fanatic who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. He cannot be allowed to get anywhere near a nuclear weapon.
Yet whatever Ahmadinejad said years ago, and that remains in dispute, he does not control the military, he does not decide on war, and he leaves the presidency next July and heads back to academia.
Is America afraid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Where, then, is the mortal threat to justify the U.S. preparations for war with Iran described in the national press this week?
The Financial Times' Gideon Rachman argues that our obsession with Iran is obscuring a far greater potential threat.
Pakistan possesses perhaps 100 nuclear bombs and is building more, and anti-Americanism there is far more rampant than in Iran. He writes:
"Pakistan provided nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran itself. It came dangerously close to nuclear conflict with India in 1999. As for terrorism, Osama bin Laden was actually living on Pakistani soil for many years, and the tribal areas in Pakistan are still al-Qaida's most important base.
"Pakistan was also the launch pad for the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008, in which 164 people were killed. Although Pakistan's government condemned the attacks, there is strong evidence that the terrorists had links to Pakistan's intelligence. If the Mumbai attacks had been launched from Iran, the West would be shouting about 'state-sponsored terrorism.'"
Seven in 10 Pakistanis regard America as an enemy. And the drone strikes ramped up by President Obama, which have taken the lives of many innocent Pakistanis, have increased the animosity.
Yet, U.S. planes and warships are heading into the Persian Gulf, as 44 U.S. senators have urged the president to break off talks with Tehran, toughen the sanctions even further and prepare for war.
Meanwhile, Iran is testing missiles that can hit Israel and U.S. bases, and its large fleet of missile boats is exercising in the Gulf.
Otto von Bismarck said that preventive war was like committing suicide out of fear of death. Are we Americans headed for yet another unnecessary war?
In 1959, President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev, the Butcher of Budapest, to the United States for 10 days of touring and talks. In 1972, Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing to toast and talk with Chairman Mao, who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese and tens of thousands of Americans in Korea.
Ronald Reagan sought constantly for an opportunity to sit down across from the rulers of the "evil empire."
Iran is not remotely in that league, either in crimes attributed to the regime or any actual or potential threat to the United States.
Have we no statesmen who can sit down, like Reagan at Reykjavik, and negotiate with Iran's leaders for verifiable guarantees that she is not moving to nuclear weapons in return for something approaching normal relations?
If we could sit down with Stalin and Mao, why are the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad so far beyond the pale? Can we just not handle that?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iran-derangement-syndrome/
Walter Williams Calls for Nullification While Hosting Limbaugh
July6th
Walter Williams Calls for Nullification While Hosting Limbaugh
Tom Woods
Filling in for Rush Limbaugh the other day, Walter Williams spent quite a bit of time advocating the principle of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws.
I'm told a caller plugged my book Nullification, which Williams has endorsed.
The write-up at the Daily Caller, by Jeff Poor, includes this strange passage: "Nullification is a doctrine introduced in the infancy of the United States and was what some have suggested led to the Civil War. As far as the legal precedent of nullification and how it led to the Civil War, Williams said he doubted the repercussions would as serious as they were in 1861."
It seems as if everyone writing on this topic, at least from left-liberal to neocon, feels compelled to include a statement like this. How did nullification lead to the Civil War? Were the southern states trying to nullify all those nonexistent anti-slavery laws? As I've explained elsewhere, South Carolina included its frustration with the North's acts of nullification in the statement declaring and justifying its act of secession. But I doubt that's what the author has in mind when he says nullification led to the Civil War.
I've written an overview of the subject of nullification, as well as a systematic reply to objections, both of which newcomers to the subject may find useful.
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/walter-williams-calls-for-nullification-while-hosting-limbaugh/
Gunpoint Stimulus
Gunpoint Stimulus
Defense contractors are trying to frighten Americans into believing that Pentagon budget cuts will destroy the economy. It's bogus.
BY LAWRENCE J. KORB, ALEX ROTHMAN, MAX HOFFMAN | JULY 2, 2012
Since 1998, U.S. military spending has grown exponentially, reaching 20 percent of overall federal spending and more than half of discretionary spending-levels not seen since the end of World War II. In particular, the portion of the budget used to purchase equipment from private industry has doubled over the last 14 years, growing from about $100 billion in 1998 to nearly $200 billion today.
Unsurprisingly, the defense industry has enjoyed remarkable prosperity during this time, with industry profits quadrupling between 2001 and 2010. But with a struggling economy and the conclusion of two wars, the United States can no longer afford to fund a massive defense buildup in the absence of an existential threat. Every bipartisan group confronting the deficit problem -- including the President's Debt Commission (Simpson-Bowles), the Domenici-Rivlin Task Force, and the Gang of Six -- has recommended reducing defense spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade. And the Budget Control Act (BCA), passed last summer, called for Congress to identify $1.2 trillion in cuts, revenue, or both to address this fiscal dilemma. If Congress failed, the act stipulated that $500 billion be automatically "sequestered" from defense (an equivalent amount would also be "sequestered" from non-defense programs) to meet the shortfall.
Faced with the prospect of declining government spending, the defense industry has stepped into the fray. Whereas for much of the last decade the defense industry relied on fears of terrorism and the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure lucrative contracts, the end of the wars and the economic downturn have forced it to dramatically change its approach. Now, the defense industry is marketing itself as an essential job creator. Lockheed Martin, in particular, garnered headlines last week by announcing it will issue layoff notices to the majority of its 123,000 employees the week before the November elections unless sequestration is averted. It's certainly a tactic tailored to the times. The question is: will it work?
The Lockheed announcement was not the first shot in this new battle. In October 2011, the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA) published an economic impact analysis which concluded that cuts of $1 trillion over 10 years would cost the U.S. economy more than 1 million jobs, increasing the rate of unemployment by 0.6 percent. More recently, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) echoed this dire economic forecast, reporting that the BCA plus sequestration would result in the loss of over 1 million jobs, increase unemployment by 0.7 percent, and decrease gross domestic product by almost 1 percent. Most of these jobs, however, would not come from the defense industry itself. To maximize their findings (and their political impact), both studies assessed the effects of defense sequestration on every sector of the economy that could be hit by "induced effects," including secondary and tertiary effects like reduced consumer spending. As a result, the "1 million jobs" figure includes jobs in industries as distant from defense as "retail trade" and "leisure and hospitality services."
In addition to this methodological sleight of hand, the AIA and NAM studies are flawed for two fundamental reasons. First, defense spending is not a jobs program; it is a collective effort to address the threats facing the country, assure our national security, and secure our interests abroad. Therefore, the level of defense spending should be dictated by our national strategy and fiscal capacity, both of which point towards a drawdown. While it is in our interest to maintain essential industrial capacity, revenue growth and profit margins should not enter the calculus. Furthermore, if implemented wisely, $1 trillion in cuts spread over 10 years would not threaten our industrial base or national security. After more than a decade of real growth, such cuts would amount to a reduction of only about 15 percent in real terms and return defense spending to 2007 levels.
Second, defense spending is an extremely inefficient way to stimulate the economy. Both studies ignore the fact that defense spending creates far fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than other forms of government spending. For example, spending on educational services creates three times as many jobs as military spending and health care twice as many, according to research from the University of Massachusetts. Even tax cuts create almost 30 percent more jobs than money spent on weapons. So if Congress wants to spend taxpayer money to create jobs, it shouldn't give it to defense contractors.
Last week, the defense industry brought out the big guns, announcing that, since sequestration would kick in on January 1, 2013, the WARN Act (which requires that employers give their employees 60 days' notice about layoffs) would require defense contractors to issue layoff notices on November 2, 2012-4 days before the presidential elections. That's when Lockheed Martin said that it therefore plans to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 employees that their jobs could be lost due to sequestration. Defense hawks immediately seized on the warning as a political weapon; Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has even called on defense companies to start issuing layoff notices sooner to force Congress into repealing sequestration.
The defense industry's new line is a potent political offensive designed to hit legislators where it hurts: their districts. It's a variation on the long-standing industry strategy of spreading the production of weapons systems across numerous congressional districts in order to ensure political support for the programs. Taking the economic tack -- particularly in an election year in which the political punditry has decreed that "it's the economy, stupid" -- is also a useful way to separate the defense spending debate from its proper historical context. Many of the people now animated by the industry's jobs claims are unaware of the recent history of the U.S. defense industry and its taxpayer-financed bonanza.
The offensive has certainly spooked members of Congress with military installations or defense industrial operations in their districts (basically, everyone). Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been particularly vocal, declaring that sequestration would "cripple our economy and defenses in a single blow." Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has also taken up the call, along with Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
While these tactics are designed to cause legislators and their constituents to panic, the fact of the matter is that defense companies are overstating the impact of sequestration. First, sequestration would require the Pentagon to reduce its budget by about 10 percent next year. While a 10 percent reduction in weapons procurement certainly would not be good news for defense contractors' bottom lines, it would hardly require companies to lay off their entire work force. Lockheed Martin, for example, would still be contracted to build new F-35s, if perhaps not as many as anticipated, and provide maintenance and spare parts for numerous aircraft already in service.
Additionally, defense industry leaders have kept quiet about another trend bolstering their businesses: foreign arms sales. The State Department announced in early June that it had approved over $44 billion in sales of military parts or equipment by private U.S. companies abroad in 2011, up $10 billion from the previous year. This equipment was researched, developed, and tested in large part with U.S. taxpayer funds, but the defense industry has been strangely silent regarding Uncle Sam's seed capital.
Moreover, sequestration impacts budget authority -- that is, how much money Congress sets aside for programs each year. Not all of this money, however, is spent in the year it is appropriated. Right now, for example, the Department of Defense has an unobligated or unspent authorized balance of $88 billion. As a result, the Pentagon's outlays -- that is, how much the Department spends in 2013 -- will almost certainly be considerably higher than what Congress appropriates, even under sequestration, so there is some economic breathing room. Massive and immediate layoffs would be both premature and an overreaction.
But the most dangerous result of these strong arm tactics by the defense industry has been to prompt budget hawks on the Hill to attempt to divorce the defense cuts from a comprehensive debt reduction plan. The sequester was, after all, the stick intended to force a grand bargain, and in that way it is working. We should not allow the parochial concerns of defense company executives -- even dressed up as sudden concern for economic stimulus -- to distract from this broader public policy debate.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/02/gunpoint_stimulus?page=full
The Oil Change Co-Pay
The Oil Change Co-Pay
July 6, 2012By eric
If using insurance to pay for everything is such a marvelous idea, why not expand the concept? How come, for example, we tolerate paying for tire rotations and oil changes out of pocket?
Why not carry Car Maintenance Insurance (CMI) instead? Wouldn't this make owning a car more affordable? More fair?
Is it not outrageous that so many millions of Americans aren't covered?
I've asked people who defend Obamacare about this. They immediately see the silliness of using insurance to cover minor routine car maintenance. But somehow, they don't connect the logical dots and grasp that the same reasoning applies to minor routine maintenance of one's body, too. People in this country didn't always whip out an Aetna or Blue Cross card – and fill out myriad Byzantine forms – when it was time to settle up with their doc. They opened up their wallet or their purse and handed the man (or his nurse/office manager) a $20. There was no need for an entire staff of sour-faced fraus to handle the endless reams of paperwork – each paper-rustling sour-faced frau costing the doc (and thus, you) a considerable chunk of change.
There was no army of cube workers down the line processing your paperwork – and doing all in their power to dodge the bill and send it back to you.
It was a pretty good system. It still works pretty well, too – when it comes to fixing our cars. We carry insurance for catastrophic – or at least, major – events. But we don't - yet – expect – CMI to cover our next $29.99 oil change or tire rotation. Because most people still seem to understand that it would drive up costs – and not just a little bit – because routine maintenance is, well routine. It's going to be necessary. One hundred percent certainty. Which in the context of insurance means it would be madness to use insurance as a way to pay for it. Because the whole point of insurance is to reduce the cost of the relatively isolated catastrophic event by pooling resources. One hundred people pay in – in relatively small amounts – to defray the cost (at a reasonable cost to each person paying in) of a loss or damages incurred by a relative handful. Most of the people paying in don't take out – collect a payment. They pay in to insure themselves against the possibility of having to deal with a huge bill for something unexpected – something they hope will never happen. And which very probably won't happen.
This is what makes insurance make economic sense.
But if it is known going in that everyone paying in will also expect a payment – that the insurance will be used to pay for everything, no matter how minor and not just the unexpected exceptional event – well, now you're just playing a variant of musical chairs.
Only when the music stops playing, none of us have a place to sit.
What good does it do me to use insurance to pay for an oil change when the cost of that insurance is much higher than the amount I'd be paying if I just paid for such routine maintenance out of pocket? Sure, I'm "covered" – but that's not much security (a treasured thing in the Age of Clover) when said coverage is unaffordable. And as a consequence of which, the services rendered are inexorably rendered less often as those rendering them do their best to staunch the financial hemorrhaging.
Which is precisely what has happened as regards "health care" – precisely because people have become accustomed to not paying for "routine maintenance" directly, out of pocket, as they would – as they still do – when it comes to their cars. They see the seemingly inexpensive $20 co-pay and think happy thoughts about affordable care. That they are "covered."
They universally neglect to consider the annual fee – typically in the many thousands of dollars – for the insurance itself.
It never occurs to them, apparently, that it might be a better deal to pay $50 out of pocket when Junior has the sniffles – instead of $4,000 a year for the covers-it-all insurance. That they'd have money in the bank – as opposed to their money in the insurance company's bank account – if they paid for the small stuff themselves, directly – cutting out the expense of all the middlemen involved in the transaction when insurance is involved. If they only used insurance in extreme circumstances, to cover the big ticket items – the unforeseen, unlikely occurrences that may occur – but which usually (for most people) don't. Then, their overall costs would be much lower – simply because they're not paying for everything for everyone - just some things for some people sometimes.
They get it when it comes to their cars.
They pay their wrench directly. He gives them a bill, they settle up – it's done. The wrench does not need a front office full of sour-faced fraus – each frau costing him $40,000-plus a year in wages and benefits – to deal with make-work paperwork over an oil change or a tune-up. As a result, he is able to charge less for the work he does – because there's much less overhead.
Specifically, there are fewer useless eaters to feed.
Just imagine how much an oil change would cost if your mechanic had to have that office full of fraus. If he had the overhead that your doctor has. If every little thing launched reams of paperwork – as opposed to a simple invoice, a receipt – and a thank you for your business.
If oil changes were "covered" – a la routine visits to the doctor – people would probably avail themselves of oil changes more often as opposed to when necessary. And they would probably be more likely to abuse – or at least, neglect – their cars.
After all, the repairs are "covered."
But it'd cost us all a small fortune – for even the small stuff.
This is exactly what's happened with regard to health care. And instead of addressing this fundamental – and should-be-obvious – problem, the problem has been institutionalized and made the very basis of the whole sorry program.
Math skills – and common sense – are in short supply these days.
Which is why we got HMOs. Which led inevitably – inexorably – to the idea of Obamacare for the innumerate and economically illiterate.
Just wait until the idea is applied to car "health care."
Because it's coming, too.
Throw it in the Woods?
http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/07/06/the-oil-change-co-pay/
**JP** Tulue....!! Irsahd Ahmed arif MQM our Altif Qatal ke lay Law change ho rha hay...wah o Zaradi tari ...............
Nisar Awan
The Sign of Sincerity
{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,
Yeh meri Maan ki duaayon ka assar lagta hai."}}
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Fwd: LibertyVlogger on TSA assault
----
LibertyVlogger.com |
| Young Woman Molested by TSA Shares Her Story Posted: 06 Jul 2012 06:06 PM PDT The TSA molested me in the Orange County Airport. It was sexual assault. Plain and simple. Just because she had an uniform on, doesn't make it okay. R.I.P 4th amendment.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from LibertyVlogger.com To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
**JP** Pakistan kea Khalif ak new our boht bari Ghanaanoney Sazish must read
|
|
|
Nisar Awan
The Sign of Sincerity
{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,
Yeh meri Maan ki duaayon ka assar lagta hai."}}
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Re: **JP** comments pls
ek baar nhi kitni baar jhuka he. jub tak awaam nhi badlegi isi tarah sar sharam se jhukta rahega.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
On 7 July 2012 09:47, Fahad Dogar <fahaddogar4u@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM, ni$ aWaN <nisar.awan98@gmail.com> wrote:
Nisar Awan
The Sign of Sincerity
{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,
Yeh meri Maan ki duaayon ka assar lagta hai."}}
LAANTI OR BAIGARET LOG HAI YA....
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Don't Blame People
For Disappointing You
Blame Yourself For
Expecting Too Much From Them..!!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Re: **JP** comments pls
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM, ni$ aWaN <nisar.awan98@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Nisar Awan
The Sign of Sincerity
{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,
Yeh meri Maan ki duaayon ka assar lagta hai."}}
LAANTI OR BAIGARET LOG HAI YA....
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
**JP** comments pls
Nisar Awan
The Sign of Sincerity
{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,
Yeh meri Maan ki duaayon ka assar lagta hai."}}
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Video: Barrycare Explained
| |
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)