Mafia, not all OECD date does list the author. You know that of course.
As far as being laughed out of the room, I do this for a living so if the research I present is not accurate and credible to the individuals who pay me to do the research I'm out of work.
Unlike academics.

Well I have to go live my life now so I'm probably going to rapidly forget about this thread. It was fun!

On a side note, Tettleton talking about anybody else slinging middle school insults is fucking hilarious.

I for one consider his flailing(failing?) rants to be a source of much mirth. Its dinner AND a show!

If we are truly concerned about the "moral obligation" that requires nationalized health without relying on the "mythical victim" that this thread began about, but was quickly ignored by respondents we need to get serious.
We need to define "who is an individual obligated too."
Can my friends on the left define this in any meaningful way, or is their only response that the individual is chattel to the will of the government.

"Mafia, not all OECD date does list the author. You know that of course.
As far as being laughed out of the room, I do this for a living so if the research I present is not accurate and credible to the individuals who pay me to do the research I'm out of work.
Unlike academics." - Oh Tettleton, I was kidding, obviously. It's just the last time I cited OECD data you made that same argument that I just made. I'm just screwing with you. It's much more productive than taking you seriously.

What is my obligation to you and what is your obligation to me?

That is a simple question.

Mafia, I take you seriously though. That's why I employ the best accountants and tax lawyers I can to keep your hands off the fruits of my labor.

My hands are no where near the fruits of your labour. As you can tell by the way I spell labour, we live in different countries.

"Mafia, I take you seriously though. That's why I employ the best accountants and tax lawyers I can to keep your hands off the fruits of my labor." - Also yeah, that forgotten minority, the kind of people who can afford to employ multiple accountants and tax lawers to protect themselves from the depredations of thieving, university students. Turns out this thread is well named after all, I think I just found the mythical victim.

Mafia,

The funny thing is I research about health care all the time.
I find nothing to support the idea that government care if more efficient or less costly than private care.
I find tons of evidence to support the contention that health care costs would diminish significantly with a few simply beginning steps.
1-Tax insurance as income to convey to the recipient some idea of the cost of their health care policy.
2-Allow the sale of health care policies across state lines. This would end the monopoly of companies within individual states.
3-Allow individual health care accounts for every tax payer.
4-Allow the sale of high deductible catastrophic policies that do not offer co-pays for any service whatsoever, but do cap expenditures at a predetermined deductible level.

Now all I get from the defenders of state monopolies are the usual nonsense, like the President making a mythical victim of his own mother.

Rather unoriginal of you Mafia.

The funny thing is I research about health care all the time.
I find nothing to support the idea that government care if more efficient or less costly than private care. - Then you're not looking at all the evidence. You're cherry picking what you do and do not want to see.

Unoriginal? I'm trying to be glib, not poetic. And to be entirely honest, I still think I have a point, original or not. You're a privileged, reasonably wealthy individual trying to protect the resources you've appropriated from people who need them more than you do.

"Also yeah, that forgotten minority, the kind of people who can afford to employ multiple accountants and tax lawers to protect themselves from the depredations of thieving, university students. Turns out this thread is well named after all, I think I just found the mythical victim."
+1 Mafia

@Mafia - Do you have the contact information for the Hitler Wasn't Such a Bad Guy Foundation? I wish to send them money.

Yeah, their email address is [email protected]. You can e-mail them your question directly.

I don't have a question, gerbil-butt. I wish to send them funding.

Nice headline from the MIT News.

New lung cancer gene found
Cancer biologists identify a driving force behind the spread of an aggressive type of lung cancer.

Funny thing is this major breakthrough in lung cancer research occurred in the United States.
Why didn't it occur in Canada's medical research establishment where the government knows best?
Why didn't it occur in the European medical research establishment where the medical system run by the government is "vastly superior?"

Why didn't it occur in one of the state university systems in the US instead of a private research institution.

This isn't the way it is supposed to work for the lunatic statists who keep saying that government socialism knows best.

Reality is just a real pain in the keester for statists.

@Tettleton, of course MIT is a great school... and private universities often do amazing things. The citing of this fact does *not* naturally lead to the conclusion that private is inherently better than public. There are plenty of cases of publicly funded universities and research programs (publicly funded wholly or in part) that do amazing things as well. Your argument is lame. Here's a link showing breakdowns of the top research universities - public and private:
http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html
There is a pretty even mix... which proves nothing. Much like your argument. For example, the link for Medical Research Universities ( http://mup.asu.edu/Rankings-I/2010_Top_Medical.xls ) lists that 6 of the top 9 are public universities. Does it prove anything. Not really. There are, no doubt, numerous variables involved. I end this little dip into the question you pose (and then claim to answer based one a single case) with a big shrug.

"Funny thing is this major breakthrough in lung cancer research occurred in the United States.
Why didn't it occur in Canada's medical research establishment where the government knows best?
Why didn't it occur in the European medical research establishment where the medical system run by the government is "vastly superior?""

You mean the MIT cancer research center that derives a good deal of its funding from the National Institute of Health, ie. the government.

Jackass

SantaClausewitz, You claim that MIT gets a major part of its funding from the NIH. You don't show anything.
Are we supposed to take the word of an individual who signs his posts "jackass?"
When you asked someone to take your word instead of producing the facts you weaken you own argument.
You are a teacher. You know that.

Where does the money from the NIH come from?
The NIH didn't receive venture capital and then set up a business model that makes that seed capital grow.
The NIH takes tax money from productive citizens, filters it through a bureaucracy, and then funnels it to projects picked by bureaucrats dominated by lobbying and a politics.
The NIH model is more efficient that individual Americans giving money to the March of Dimes, the American Lung Association, or the myriad of nonprofit organizations that fund basic research?

Why didn't it occur in one of the state university systems in the US instead of a private research institution.

You mean like the AIDS breakthrough that occurred at the STATE University of New Jersey, Rutgers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/13/79682/-AIDS-Breakthrough!Good-news!

SantaClausowitz,

You are citing an article from the dailykos?
Please be serious.
The dailykos article you linked to has a hyperlink entitled "Researchers May Have Stopped HIV" and the link is dead.
A seven year old article on the Daily Kos with a dead link to the real information.
Not impressive.

Heres a source that the conservative backer of the MIT Cancer Research Center is against government cuts that will affect the institute that made this breakthrough

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/david-koch-cancer-research-gop-nih

"On Friday, conservative billionaire David Koch lamented the deep federal cuts that are expected to impact both the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute—and, by extension, MIT's new David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research. "If the cutbacks happen, it will significantly diminish the level of research that can be carried on at the Koch Institute," he said, speaking at the opening of the research center. Koch, the executive vice president of Koch Industries, implored the deep-pocketed attendees of the ceremony to fill the gap with personal donations: "I earnestly ask you to do all you can to help maintain the superb research at the Koch Institute at its maximum level."

Jackass

better?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041013085639.htm

Mother Jones News Santa Clausowitz?

You live your life on the Dailykos and motherjonesnews?
That certainly accounts for your ignorance.
You do respect John Olerud so that proves you aren't brain dead, but that apparently is the only part of your brain that is functioning.

The NIH quote you include from mother jones doesn't mention John Hopkins at all.
It was also written before John Hopkins made the breakthrough this month.
You are supposed to be a historian Santa Claus? If you are you are one horrible historian.
You can't find relevant material. You can't check your material to see that it's valid.
You basically make a fool of yourself in a blind attempt to argue that government is responsible for all important research in the United States.
I already totally demolished your argument on that line concerning concerning the 19th century. I asked you to name important inventions or projects funded by the government and you couldn't name any.

What does it matter where the facts come from. Again your thick head cant grasp this. We are arguing over a FACT, not interpretation. Does the MIT research laboratory derive money from the Government. The Answer is Yes, and according to a conservative philanthropist is going to be hurt by government cuts. It doesn't matter if I got it from.

"If you are you are one horrible historian. "

I am an award winning historian