The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Wild Card => Topic started by: Death Ray on February 12, 2008, 01:48:45 am
-
So, by now most of y'all must know what it is you will be voting about come November. What are Achewood fans' number one concern? The War? The Other War? Healthcare? The holy-shit-they-just-went-up-another-nickel-while-I-typed-this-sentence gas prices? What say you?
-
The fact that everyone else on the planet hates us so damn much. That's the issue that matters the most to me. My daughter is almost four. I don't want her to spend her life living in the country that is The Bad Guy.
-
The ratcheting effect of exploding blob sized government. Also, Blowback.
-
The fact that everyone else on the planet hates us so damn much. That's the issue that matters the most to me. My daughter is almost four. I don't want her to spend her life living in the country that is The Bad Guy.
Wouldn't it be worth it though if you could have a charismatic evil dude as a leader? I don't mean wrinkled old evil like Cheney but a serious unrepentant evil sonofabitch with stylish black outfits with huge collars a goatee.
-
I swear, my number one election issue is on the verge of being, I won't vote for anyone who calls up my phone with a recorded message about voting for him/her.
-
Hot Coffee, idiotic over reactions to
-
top three, probably:
the fact that people really hate us lately
the fact that we are destroying the environment and I worry that I will be living in a wasteland in 40 years when Sens. McCain, Clinton, and Obama will be dead or senile
the fact that torturing people is so incredibly stupid and inhuman and unamerican that it makes me want to slap people. it doesn't work, either. This is really the one, quite frankly, that is pretty make-or-break to me. The only time in my life I have gotten so mad that I started screaming at someone (and possibly used the word Fuck in class) was when this one guy tried to defend the use of torture. Although I have been a pussy about that other times.
I heard this one interview with a guy who was imprisoned in Guantanamo because he pissed off someone in government in some other country (Turkey), and he told his fellow prisoners "it's OK, we're being given to the Americans. They won't torture us. they're good, kind people. I've been to their country, and Americans treat everyone with dignity."
I also heard an interview where an Air Force officer who used to run some kind of interrogation unit in the 90s talked about how the methods being used in Iraq/gitmo/etc are ineffective, and we didn't even use them on Nazis in WWII because back then we knew they were so ineffective, and thought they were inhumane. We had a lot of success in WWII with getting captured Germans to talk by... treating them well and gaining their trust.
Both of those made me want to slap some people, and also cry for our country.
-
Wouldn't it be worth it though if you could have a charismatic evil dude as a leader? I don't mean wrinkled old evil like Cheney but a serious unrepentant evil sonofabitch with stylish black outfits with huge collars a goatee.
Only if it's Chuck D, and he brings the S1W with him.
-
I would like less war, please, and definitely less wars that can logically only lead to even more wars.
In a strong but distant second, socializing medicine. C'mon people. Everyone with electricity other than us fuckin' has this. Lets quit being piddling dicks about a little bit more in taxes and fuckin' get on it. Seriously.
-
... but Chuck D isn't awesome, he is like the best ever. I love Chuck D.
-
Yea, and he isn't evil.
One issue? Well there are so many, but if I am going to be selgiraffe it is the other war. If not, basically just someone who will completely reverse the last 8 years.
-
Out of curiosity what are opinions on the Afganistan war? It's certainly more well recieved over here since it's gone a bit more smoothly, seems to have a definite enemy and was, arguably, a much more horrible regime than Saddam's, but I find myself wondering how much of that is just media bias. There certainly don't seem to be as many people crying for us to pull our troops out of there anyway.
-
Out of curiosity what are opinions on the Afganistan war? It's certainly more well recieved over here since it's gone a bit more smoothly, seems to have a definite enemy and was, arguably, a much more horrible regime than Saddam's, but I find myself wondering how much of that is just media bias. There certainly don't seem to be as many people crying for us to pull our troops out of there anyway.
It has gone just as poor as the Iraq war. The Taliban is still very much alilve, as is A-Q and Usama. The upside is that the opium poppy, which was suppressed by religious fundamentalists, is at an all time high in production. Heroin is cheaper and more potent than any other time in history, and its coming from Afghanistan. The DEA has admitted our troops are essentially a free armored guard for opium production. Spike up, kids, we've exported democracy!
-
I'm pretty sure that the number one attitude concerning Afgahnistan is a solid, emphatic, "meh." I mean, it's good we toppled the Taliban and all, but it is seriously on the way back burner in the minds of most Americans. And most Europeans, apparently, because our secretary of defense is having a heck of a time getting any of them to commit more than warm fuzzies to the endeavour.
Randall Flagg for President! Oh wait....nevermind.
-
What's been horrifically poetic is that... y'know... the longer and the more force we put into the charade of the "improving" Iraq, the more Afghanistan regresses into great swirling bowl of senseless awful.
The centre shall not hold, hepcats.
-
Wouldn't it be worth it though if you could have a charismatic evil dude as a leader? I don't mean wrinkled old evil like Cheney but a serious unrepentant evil sonofabitch with stylish black outfits with huge collars a goatee.
I think he's busy sitting in a hotub full of Chivas Regal in North Korea.
-
If we're building our perfect charmingly-horrible despot, I demand a pointy beard.
-
Actually this might explain Putin. He'd defintely fit.
-
My #1 issue is the overall direction of foreign and military policy, i.e. the PNAC strategy, and all that entails: the wars, our standing in the world community, and the fact that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined.
By the way, if you liked the will.i.am/Obama "Yes We Can" video (http://www.dipdive.com/), you'll love the McCain version (http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/you-saw-obama-video-now-watch-mccain.html).
-
In a strong but distant second, socializing medicine. C'mon people. Everyone with electricity other than us fuckin' has this. Lets quit being piddling dicks about a little bit more in taxes and fuckin' get on it. Seriously.
Amen, hallelujah.
-
In a strong but distant second, socializing medicine.
Sure. Government does such a good job with education, infrastructure, immigration, and transportation - lets apply some of that genius to health care. After all, war is the ultimate government program, and we've got front row seats to how well that's going.
-
Sure. Government does such a good job with education, infrastructure, immigration, and transportation - lets apply some of that genius to health care. After all, war is the ultimate government program, and we've got front row seats to how well that's going.
You dont get it, jaydub, this will be the first thing government has done right. They will magically learn everything there is to know about healthcare and run the system better than anyone else.
-
OK, I know I am a bad person, but right now my number one election issue is that it is too freaking cold to go to my polling place which is two and a half blocks away. I'll have another cup of hot tea and try to get over the feeling.
Oh god, Afghanistan. Sometimes a news story or such says something about how we are at war in two places, and for a second I'm all "TWO - oh, yeah, right...." I have no idea what we are still doing there and it is too depressing to think about.
-
Man, no. The solution to nationalized healthcare is the same as to the problems with education, infrastructure, etc. Broad policy changes at the national level, with implementation controlled by local entities that understand the specific problems of the community. Soviet-style monolithic government failed, we need a national program that implements large-scale changes while giving actual power to the people who live in the communities-- municipal and state level authorities, elected by the people they will directly serve.
The psychology i've had, and the anthropology I've had, and the nearly-20 years of experience I've had with human beings, tell me that people do not make the most "rational" decisions, especially when it comes to things like health which are complex and don't seem like immediate threats. People constantly make horrible decisions about their health, and that's their right. Smoke, do drugs, eat fatty foods, whatever. But kids shouldn't suffer for the sins of their parents. The fact that your dad spends his money on lottery tickets, or your parents are saving up for a house, or whatever the fuck, whether good use of funds or not, should not keep you from getting basic healthcare.
We have public education in this country because we believe every child deserves the same chance to be successful. Has this been entirely successful? No. Some people are born with inherited natural advantages (intelligence, discipline), and some are born with inherited advantages of a different type (my dad is a legacy at Harvard, my mom is in the yacht club with the head of the UPenn medical school, my great-grandpa invented ketchup). Does this mean public education shouldn't exist? I hope none of you will argue this is the case. Not to mention the fact that democracy cannot come even close to functioning without a well-educated populace. How is education a universal right, but not basic healthcare? Ridiculous.
-
Oh wtf... I just looked at the sample ballot and not only do I have to vote for a presidential candidate, I have to vote for "Female delegates and alternate to the Democratic national convention" and "Male delegates to the Democratic national convention." wtF???
But seriously for a minute... Public education used to be something this country did a good job of. And it wasn't that long ago. I am old enough to have lived when children with no money could get a good education in the New York City public schools. (They still can, but it's way more complicated, from what I hear.) I'm not going to attempt to analyze what has changed and how much of that is under federal control or what that implies for healthcare. But if you assert that education is something government can't do well, it seems to me you're simply ignoring history.
-
Sure. Government does such a good job with education, infrastructure, immigration, and transportation - lets apply some of that genius to health care. After all, war is the ultimate government program, and we've got front row seats to how well that's going.
OK, fair enough. But can you seriously be suggesting that our healthcare system is OK the way it is? We spend roughly twice per capita what any other industrialized nation does, yet the quality and access to care is far worse. Right now our system is run by insurance companies -- an industry that makes the oil companies look positively altruistic -- and drug manufacturers.
Why should we be satisfied with hugely over-paying for far lower quality?
And how does the consumer change the system without government intervention?
Let's just give up and not try to improve anything. All hail our corporate overlords!
-
Sure. Government does such a good job with education, infrastructure, immigration, and transportation - lets apply some of that genius to health care. After all, war is the ultimate government program, and we've got front row seats to how well that's going.
How much of this is intrinisc to government, and how much is due to the people who have been running the government for the last 8+ years? The current administration, and the Senate (which, despite technically being Democratic controlled right now, is still beholdin' to the Republicans on everything because the Dems don't have the sack to actually make them filibuster a bill), are overfond of stripping all non-defense agencies of their funding, appointing people from the industries they're supposed to be regulating to key government posts, then pointing to the subsequent shitty job and saying "see, government is incompetent!"
Or to quote Lance Mannion (http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2008/02/government-as-a.html),
If the Government is a car setting out to give every one a ride to work, then for 40 years the Republicans have been puncturing the tires, pouring sand in the gas tank, stealing the distributor cap, and, whenever they can get their hands on the wheel, driving it straight into the nearest ditch and then, pointing to the wreckage as the tow truck backs up to it, saying, See, this proves that people were meant to walk. And they do this so that they don't have to chip in on gas.
-
How much of this is intrinisc to government, and how much is due to the people who have been running the government for the last 8+ years? The current administration, and the Senate (which, despite technically being Democratic controlled right now, is still beholdin' to the Republicans on everything because the Dems don't have the sack to actually make them filibuster a bill), are overfond of stripping all non-defense agencies of their funding, appointing people from the industries they're supposed to be regulating to key government posts, then pointing to the subsequent shitty job and saying "see, government is incompetent!"
Or to quote Lance Mannion (http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2008/02/government-as-a.html),
Since I can't give Lance Mannion a can, I'm giving it to you.
-
I almost want to see a dental version of Medicare. Right now insurance companies tie their payments to Medicare's. So if Medicare raises their payout for say a mammogram, then every private insurer will raise theirs to match.
So if there was a dental version of Medicare that say, covered the type of fillings that have been in use for the last 20 years instead of just the cheaper crappier fillings that nobody uses anymore then other insurers would basically be shamed into following suit.
The downside is that if Medicare settles on a criminally low payment for a service (as they did for mammo for a number of years) then private insurers will keep their payouts equally low. But the dentists I've talked to seem to think it would be worth it.
-
Since I can't give Lance Mannion a can, I'm giving it to you.
Me too.
OK, I went out and voted. I was rewarded for my civic duty by having the freezing rain start just as I started to walk home.
Now, the more important race: If the beagle wins Westminster tonight, I have to get up tomorrow morning and start trying to turn in a story about it by the end of the day.
-
Education has always been run by the states too - including back when it was working better, and it's not clear that federal attempts at intervention have been a good thing. So Ash has a point. But we still have to make all the states do it somehow, and I'm tired of waiting, you know?
-
no, yeah, that's what I'm saying. The national government says "national healthcare is now in effect. here is some funding. here is a list of the minimum of what has to be covered. figure it out, dudes and dudettes."
-
I think you'd find that health care wouldn't cost so much if the government got out of it. Subsidized healthcare raises healthcare prices. If the government subsidized $5 of a $10 book, the price would rise to $15 and you would buy the same book, because to you the price hasn't changed. The same can be said of education. Colleges can charge the prices they do because such a huge part of the price isn't paid by the consumer.
-
The entire rest of the civilized world seems to have figured it out.
And a lot of other things too.
The reason that things like education and transportation don't work perfectly as public devices in America is that... we're a bunch of whiny bitches who don't want to accept that being part of a society means paying taxes and... then corporate bastards and their mouthpieces twist that shit even further until everything is undermined to serve their very very private interests.
If the fault were in the stars, it wouldn't have worked anywhere as opposed to... everywhere else.
Our society confuses individualism with selgiraffeness and business interests manipulate and feed that confusion... and the fault is within us.
-
China, with 1.3 billion people, does not have national healthcare. India, with 1.1 billion people, does not have functional national healthcare (70 hospital beds per hundred thousand people). The US, with 300 million people, has free emergency healthcare and a plethora of medicare, medicaide, TRICARE, VA,SCHIP, etc programs. Indonesia with 230 million people does not have a functional universal health care system. Brazil, with 186 million people has World Bank and IMF supported healthcare and still can't make it work.
These are the top 5 populated nations and none of them have made universal healthcare work. Germany, with 27% of our population, has made progress, but thats a lot less people to deal with. This "everyone else is doing it so why don't we" argument doesn't hold water. It isn't a one to one application. What works in a country a quarter the size of ours won't necessarily work here.
-
thus, my point. Administrate that shit on a state/local level.
-
China, with 1.3 billion people, does not have national healthcare. India, with 1.1 billion people, does not have functional national healthcare (70 hospital beds per hundred thousand people). The US, with 300 million people, has free emergency healthcare and a plethora of medicare, medicaide, TRICARE, VA,SCHIP, etc programs. Indonesia with 230 million people does not have a functional universal health care system. Brazil, with 186 million people has World Bank and IMF supported healthcare and still can't make it work.
These are the top 5 populated nations and none of them have made universal healthcare work. Germany, with 27% of our population, has made progress, but thats a lot less people to deal with. This "everyone else is doing it so why don't we" argument doesn't hold water. It isn't a one to one application. What works in a country a quarter the size of ours won't necessarily work here.
OK. Fine, but you still haven't addressed my point. Are you satisfied with the way healthcare works now? You say "socialized" medicine won't work. I'm saying what we have now doesn't work very well either. Does that mean we're stuck with the dysfunctional system we have?
Also, isn't China still (at least ostensibly) a Communist country? Isn't everything national?
-
OK. Fine, but you still haven't addressed my point. Are you satisfied with the way healthcare works now? You say "socialized" medicine won't work. I'm saying what we have now doesn't work very well either. Does that mean we're stuck with the dysfunctional system we have?
Also, isn't China still (at least ostensibly) a Communist country? Isn't everything national?
China used to have national healthcare but it broke down and now its similar to the american model of subsidized health care.
We agree that improvements can be made, we agree it would be really cool if everyone had all the healthcare they need, but we disagree on the method of getting there. Some people believe the government will have some advantage to managing healthcare, I don't. I think if we removed government restrictions and subsidies, the price would go down and access to healthcare would increase.
Im also down with Inev in that if a state or a community wants to experiment with healthcare on the local level, then they should have the right to operate outside of some mammoth national administration.
That said, there are places in our country with free universal healthcare, free education, and free food, clothing and shelter. All you have to do is commit is a serious crime to get there.
-
Now, the more important race: If the beagle wins Westminster tonight, I have to get up tomorrow morning and start trying to turn in a story about it by the end of the day.
Get to typing.
Health care... eh. It's plain to see that unless you get awesome insurance from your job or are just rich, health care in this country sucks. But you hear the horror stories of European-style health care, and it makes you wonder if that would be any better.
And let's face it, being a doctor sucks. For someone who is willing to make a career out of stepping up to the plate and fixing us when we break, we sure like to treat doctors like shit in this country. Hospital resident doctors on 16-, 18-, 24-hour shifts. I'm sorry, but if I'm bleeding out of something that I shouldn't be bleeding out of, I want the guy or gal that punched in this morning, not yesterday afternoon. My mom has been a receptionist for the same doctor for about 15 years, and she gets worried sometimes about the pace he has to run to keep the office moving. Part of the problem is the cost of malpractice insurance, because we're so gawddamm litigation-crazy. I would support an upper limit on malpractice claims if it brought the overall cost of health care down.
-
But you hear the horror stories of European-style health care, and it makes you wonder if that would be any better.
To be fair, though, those are "horror" stories of people saying "Oh, I had to wait in liiiiiiiiine" or "Oh, I had to hold off on my elective surgery for a couple of weeks and I shouldn't have to do that, I'm rich and being rich should give me more rights than people who aren't!"
No one goes broke because of a catastrophic medical condition, everyone gets life-saving medicines and nobody has to choose between a slow painful death and ruining the finances of everyone you care about.
Nothing will ever be perfect anywhere ever... but there are imperfections out there that are at least humane in their imperfection.
If we aren't humane, we're nothing.
-
To be fair, though, those are "horror" stories of people saying "Oh, I had to wait in liiiiiiiiine" or "Oh, I had to hold off on my elective surgery for a couple of weeks and I shouldn't have to do that, I'm rich and being rich should give me more rights than people who aren't!"
No one goes broke because of a catastrophic medical condition, everyone gets life-saving medicines and nobody has to choose between a slow painful death and ruining the finances of everyone you care about.
Nothing will ever be perfect anywhere ever... but there are imperfections out there that are at least humane in their imperfection.
If we aren't humane, we're nothing.
Really? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/12/autism-scoc.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/12/autism-scoc.html)
-
but... that problem exists for every health problem in America if there isn't socialized medicine.
The fact that these people are petitioning to have this case covered is only possible becaue... everything else is covered.
This same story happens all over the US, with many different problems, except they don't have the hope that the government will pay.
-
Isolated tragic cases don't disprove the broad strokes of an idea or a system. You could definitely find a case of a seatbelt killing someone to put up against ten thousand cases of a person only living because of a seat belt.
Canada's system isn't perfect, that isn't what I'm saying.
It's a lot better for a lot more people and that's what matters. Hopefully, it'll improve as time and medical understanding improves? But at least they're not at square one like we are.
Babies and bathwater and so on.
-
Isolated tragic cases don't disprove the broad strokes of an idea or a system. You could definitely find a case of a seatbelt killing someone to put up against ten thousand cases of a person only living because of a seat belt.
Canada's system isn't perfect, that isn't what I'm saying.
It's a lot better for a lot more people and that's what matters. Hopefully, it'll improve as time and medical understanding improves? But at least they're not at square one like we are.
Babies and bathwater and so on.
What you did say was that those horror stories are people waiting in line. What you did say was that no one could ever go broke paying for healthcare in a socialized healthcare system. What you did say was that no one has to choose between pain and finances.
You're wrong. Problems don't disappear just because someone says there is universal health care. Some problems are remedied, new problems emerge, old problems persist.
The point is, there are problems with socialized medicine, just as there are problems with our system of semi-socialized medicine.
-
Frankly, that particular case sounds like it has little to do with the state of socialized medicine in Canada and a lot more to do with cultural misunderstandings about autism and with the way medical understanding of autism and related disabilities/disorders is still developing.
And it is certainly bad that sometimes medical understanding is slow to develop, especially in areas attached to social stigma...
But that's something to be said about medicine in culture, not about the overall efficacy of universal health care... I don't know if you purposely chose an anecdote that confused the issue but there we are.
-
I am socially liberal, like as far as you can be, because I think that that is freedom. I mean, that makes sense to me.
I used to call myself a communist, and I am still drawn to it, but I don't think any of us actually believe there is a system that is perfect. We each have opinions on what are better, but really, they are all bullshit. People will always suffer cause adam ate that apple, don't you remember? But seriously, I think I am a libertarian now, because hey, either that works and it is good or we are in a much better system for communism to occur, which is what I want. Then again, any of you people heard about Denver or San Francisco before city owned trash and other similar services? Pretty shitty. Basically what I am saying is I am confused but agree with lfm that without compassion we have nothing.
-
The thing I don't get whenever I hear this argument in your country is that all sides seem to act like universal healthcare means a binary choice between having healthcare provided by (incompetent, wasteful) government or (greedy, untrustworthy) corporations. In my country I can go to a doctor or a dentist or physio or whatever and get half to the majority to all of my fees paid back by the gubmint through medicare. How much I get back depends on where I go, if I go see my local (reasonably up-market) dentist I might have to pay more out of my own pocket but I can get a quicker appointment and more personal service because I know him.
For ages I had private insurance through my parents and so I could get all my money back and probably be covered for more optional treatments than medicare would cover but of course I (or at least, my parents) had to pay insurance premiums.
My point is this: Uninsured or insured in this country you will still get healthcare at most levels, the difference is that if you've got insurance you know you'll always have the extra cash if you want to get a private room in a hospital, see that dentist tomorrow instead of next week etc. etc. though of course if you have the cash in your back pocket you can still get the same level of treatment without insurance. So why do you act over there like you either have to pay unreasonable insurance companies OR have minimum-level service for everyone? The government paying for a reasonable level of healthcare does not mean that private enterprise has no place in the healthcare system to provide better treatment for those who are willing to pay for it.
I also get the feeling that insurance premiums are much higher over there than they are over here and I suspect the reason for this is that the insurance companies here have to offer value that can compete with the basic level of care offered by the government whereas for in american you must to be insured unless you want to go the emergency room everytime you need some antibiotics for a rash (this is my vague understanding, please correct gently if I'm wrong). If the insurance companies don't feel like competing too hard with each other on price then there's no (or at least distorted) market pressure to drive the price down because not having insurance isn't a reasonable option for many people.
It would be interesting (to me at least) if people popped their details in here (http://www.mbf.com.au/HealthInsurance/Getaquickquote) (one of the major health insurers down here) to see what a rough comparison would be between what insurance costs there and here.
Edit: This was too long so I bolded the one sentence where I actually made a point. Please don't think I'm yelling on the internet.
-
That is the part I remind people about often.
-
The thing I don't get whenever I hear this argument in your country is that all sides seem to act like universal healthcare means a binary choice between having healthcare provided by (incompetent, wasteful) government or (greedy, untrustworthy) corporations. In my country
I'm afraid that what you don't get is that basically we don't know your country exists, so we're not even considering this as an option. Not that we do a good job of looking outside our borders to learn things, of course. But I've never heard Australia mentioned in this debate anywhere and it's too bad, because that seems like the kind of system that would satisfy both sides.
-
What?! A middle ground compromise? Youre outta youre flipping mind, aussie! Dont you know youre either with us or youre with the terrorists?
-
Now, the more important race: If the beagle wins Westminster tonight, I have to get up tomorrow morning and start trying to turn in a story about it by the end of the day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_sp_ot/dog_show_24 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_sp_ot/dog_show_24)
ALL HAIL THE PERFECT DOG
-
I would not have voted for a beagle. But that's Westminster - the team I am rooting for never wins.
-
Really? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/12/autism-scoc.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/12/autism-scoc.html)
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
First and foremost, the families here aren't trying to get these therapies covered by medical insurance, they're appealing to the school system to offer it in public schools. Second, their objection is not that there is no therapy available, merely that they don't like the one that's provided for free. Third, I don't know a single parent of an autistic child (and i know plenty, believe me) whose child's therapy is paid for completely by any single source -- be that the public schools, private medical insurance, or the parent's own pocket. My son is one of the lucky few who gets the vast majority of his needs met by our county infant-toddler program (at least until he turns 3 next week). But we have excellent private insurance, and they don't cover dick because autism isn't considered a medical condition. (It falls into that vague area of "mental health," and even on the fringes of that.) And with 1 in 150 kids now being diagnosed with autism, most of them under the age of 5, it saves the insurance companies a bundle to let the schools (which we all pay for) handle it.
Try again, cappy. This orange isn't really helping your case against apples.
-
I guess the whole thing with waiting in line is that sometimes it can be a life or death proposition. Since the government (nominally) wants to save money, too, they do not cover rare proceadures or treatments related to rare conditions. My Canadian aunt had her cancer treatments done in the states because she would have had to wait too long for treatment in Canada. (I don't know exactly what kind of cancer, I think it was female-issue related)
-
Mongo.
Mongo only pawn in game of life.
-
Try again, cappy. This orange isn't really helping your case against apples.
I was posting a link in response to LFMs assertion that everything is perfect once the government runs things.
-
I was posting a link in response to LFMs assertion that everything is perfect once the government runs things.
Where did he say this? Quote him.
-
Where did he say this? Quote him.
OK, time to take two steps back. This is how is starts!!
For the record: that Government which governs best, governs least.
There is a place for government as a safety net, but those of us with the wherewithal to obtain health care through our own agency independent of the government should still be allowed the degree of choice and quality we now enjoy. It's not all luck that makes this possible for us. To raise our taxes to a great degree, and then rewarding us with no choice or quality of care would be as criminal an act as the utter neglect of people without these options. Just as basic education is a right, so should basic health care be - but it's important to distinguish what 'basic' health care is.
As for the question of whether anyone is satisfied with their current health care...I am. Very satisfied, and I also enjoy excellent vision and dental coverage as well.
I don't think we can relegate health care to Individual states - most states would not be able to afford it, and you would have people moving to states specifically for the health care. This will drive costs for the program up; in most cases the people that would be attracted would not contribute to the payment for the program significantly. Such programs usually collapse under their own weight in short order or are forced to reduce offerings or adopt and enforce restrictions.
Besides Asherdan and Spider-MiltonFriedman, does anyone here have a reason to be happy with America as it is right now? Which candidate do you think is most likely to continue or increase your happiness?
I think my number one issue is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think a lot of other things, including some major foreign policy items, would be to some degree affected or solved if we could declare energy independence. So energy policy is huge, and the economy is huge right now as well. I don't think the next president is going to solve these problems, or really, any of the others discussed in this thread, though, unless the congress, courts, and the executive branch all work together.
And I don't think that is going to happen.
-
I think my number one issue is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think a lot of other things, including some major foreign policy items, would be to some degree affected or solved if we could declare energy independence. So energy policy is huge, and the economy is huge right now as well.
Amen Brother! I agree with you 100% here.
I don't think the next president is going to solve these problems, or really, any of the others discussed in this thread, though, unless the congress, courts, and the executive branch all work together.
I'd go even farther and say that nothing significant is going to happen until the populous at large wakes up and recognizes it as a problem. Lots of us give lip service to reducing our oil use, but how many of us really make the changes it would take (e.g. taking public transport, car-pooling, investing in alternate heating systems for our homes, etc.) I include myself in that category. It's going to be an extremely difficult change to make, but it must come from the ground up.
Also, when the big energy companies figure out how they can make comparable profits from alternative source of energy (or realize that oil profits are drying up), things will change blindingly fast. In that vein, I think it's encouraging to see the CEO of BP talking about the long-term future of his company being focused away from oil. I'm aware of the source and take that kind of talk with a huge grain of salt, of course, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
-
What?! A middle ground compromise? Youre outta youre flipping mind, aussie! Dont you know youre either with us or youre with the terrorists?
To be fair this middle ground was basically accomplished by having about a decade of strong labor government (say, your democrats with a heavy union focus) building up free healthcare followed by a decade of strong liberal government (basically republicans but with less focus on social conservatism) trying to dismantle it and shift focus to private coverage. Just got to keep the yin-yang in balance.
-
And actually, A-CAP and Asherdan wouldn't like it because it would raise taxes, even if they could choose.
Also, Dawg, you work for the post office right? And you get your health care from work right? And you have better health care then the average american right? And the post office is run by the government right? (that second one is an educated guess.)
-
And actually, A-CAP and Asherdan wouldn't like it because it would raise taxes, even if they could choose.
Also, Dawg, you work for the post office right? And you get your health care from work right? And you have better health care then the average american right? And the post office is run by the government right? (that second one is an educated guess.)
yea, and Senators get amazing healthcare run by the government, but that could, would, and will never be implemented on the mass level.
-
I think my number one issue is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
My feelings are similar.
-
What do you all propose that is as cheap, as efficient, as abundant as oil? Because if that existed, we'd be using it.
-
What do you all propose that is as cheap, as efficient, as abundant as oil? Because if that existed, we'd be using it.
No shit, Sherlock.
Are you suggesting that our dependence on oil benefits us geo-politically? Or helps the environment?
Yes, the status quo is the way it is for a reason. That doesn't mean we should be satisfied with the situation or, worse yet, complacent.
-
Oh no, it is not beneficial to us so far as I can tell. I think the Saudis have us by the balls. But I don't blame "oil" as a substance. I'm really glad I can drive my car and I thank the oil companies that bring it to my corner of the globe in Farmville, VA for a couple bucks a gallon. I'm amazed at how cheap it is.
If there was some substance we could all grow in our closets for free that would run our cars, ambulances, buses, planes, and ships, then I'd be all for it.
I just don't think its fair to criticize something without offering any kind of practical solution at all.
-
man, you are real worried about Oil's feelings.
-
I mean generally the first step in finding a solution is identifying a problem. Being all 'You have no solution so you are wrong to point out the problem' is hell of unhelpful.
Besides, I think everyone explicitly said 'our dependence on oil' so no one is picking on oil specifically, we know we're the ones who have the problem.
-
OK, time to take two steps back. This is how is starts!!
Look, I just don't like people arguing against points that someone else didn't actually make. I also don't like the "If it's not perfect, it's not worth even trying!" defeatist bullshit.
-
Besides, I think everyone explicitly said 'our dependence on oil' so no one is picking on oil specifically, we know we're the ones who have the problem.
Man, I feel like you're blaming the victim here.
Sure, it was fun back in the day... we had our whole lives to live, experimenting with different kinds of power... but now we're hooked, and the dope fossil fuel peddlers keep on pushing.
...but seriously, I feel like we need to up regulation of environmental abuse. The analogy I like to make to people who say "it's my choice what kind of car I drive, fuck you" is that, well, it's your choice to own a dog, and it's my right to tell you to keep its shit out of my yard. Once you start up your hummer, you're pumping your car's shit out into the air we all breathe, and it's not quite as easy to use a pooper-scooper to remove carbon monoxide from the atmosphere. Maybe I'm stretching, but I don't think it's too far. This really isn't an issue of infringing on individual rights-- as they say, "you have the right to swing your fist as much as you please, until it hits someone else's nose."
-
Man, I feel like you're blaming the victim here.
Sure, it was fun back in the day... we had our whole lives to live, experimenting with different kinds of power... but now we're hooked, and the dope fossil fuel peddlers keep on pushing.
This is the kind of stuff im talking about. You dont really believe that we use oil because some corporations say we have to, do you? You do understand that if there was something cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient, another company would exploit the shit out of that, right?
-
I mean... I was kidding.
I feel like we're to blame, but there's certainly some evidence that fossil fuel companies have worked to discourage alternative forms of transportation (wasn't there some business with a gasoline company buying the trolleys in some city and dismantling them?)
-
I think we all get that arachnocapitalist, but I'd also put forward that if we are going to find a better alternative we need money to find and develop it and most of the people with the big money (and importantly the expertise in the energy sector) are pretty happy with how the world is running right now (why wouldn't they be? It's the world that enabled them to make so much money). So the people who are in the best position to fix our problem are generally acting as if there is no problem and in some cases are doing their best to convince people this is the case (which I guess costs them less then investing in research).
"I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" right? If a company is knowingly causing harm when it is within their power to help search for an alternative (or at the very least not try to discredit others who are) that sounds like them wanting the rest of the world to live and die for their benefit.
-
So according that argument, we would never have had cars in the first place. I mean, the hoss and buggy makers had all the money, right? Why would anyone have invested in a car if the hoss and buggy is where all the money was?
Why would anyone have invested in oil? That stuff is really expensive to find and produce and transport and refine and pump. The whale blubber dudes had all the money right? Why do we need oil when obviously whale blubber was where the money was?
-
Come on man, you're better than that.
To put my point more simply: We will move past oil, I think this is more or less inevitable and will ultimately benefit us. We could be doing this faster if oil companies did not engage in destructive protectionism of their current business model. Ideally they could be instrumental in getting us to that next stage since they have more money and expertise than anyone else in the energy sector but I'd settle for them not tearing down the people they choose to see as their opponents too.
-
When a given business gets too large and occupies too much of its market space, it supresses competition to protect itself... there is a tipping point where the innovative power of competition eats itself and the free market goes cancerous.
Oil is definitely past that tipping point. That is where government regulation is supposed to break up these cancers but... can't... because the government is unduly influenced by energy interests.
-
When a given business gets too large and occupies too much of its market space, it supresses competition to protect itself... there is a tipping point where the innovative power of competition eats itself and the free market goes cancerous.
Oil is definitely past that tipping point. That is where government regulation is supposed to break up these cancers but... can't... because the government is unduly influenced by energy interests.
Last I checked "oil" isnt a single company. BP is competition with Exxon is in competition with Citgo, etc.
Again, what alternative are you proposing? What competition was eaten? What is government not doing that would make you happy?
Energy interests? yes, were all interested in energy. We need energy. Im glad government isnt suppressing energy.
-
Are you saying that you actually believe that the aforementioned companies aren't largely in collusion and only "competing" in the most peripheral and surface of manners?
The way that prices move in those markets, like the traffic at the beginning of "LA Story", you really want to believe that?
Oh man. There is the awesome bridge that I own in Brooklyn.
-
Do you actually believe a company wouldn't lower their prices to gain a greater market share than the other guy if they could?
Youre telling me you actually believe that one company is giving up billions in potential profit just to keep up some conspiracy to gauge the consumer?
-
yes. The RIAA has gotten in trouble in the past, I believe, for doing exactly that. They all agreed with each other to keep prices above a certain level. They continue to complain about CD sales going down, but do not lower prices. This seems like the same thing, to me.
-
yes. The RIAA has gotten in trouble in the past, I believe, for doing exactly that. They all agreed with each other to keep prices above a certain level. They continue to complain about CD sales going down, but do not lower prices. This seems like the same thing, to me.
The RIAA is a government supported union. Unions are notorious for forcing members to install price floors.
-
Could I take OPEC for 1000 alex?
-
Could I take OPEC for 1000 alex?
OPEC is a collection of governments, not companies. Some of you are advocating more government activity in the economy, OPEC is the kind of stuff that results. I am in favor of less government action and more market freedom.
-
Yeah but I thought this was a discussion about whether or not oil companies have a responsibility to pursue alternative energy research, if these companies are associated with governmental organisations that has to be taken into account. I know there is an ideal of how a purely profit-focussed capitalistic corporation should work and it doesn't sound too bad to me but we shouldn't confuse the ideal with the reality.
-
Oh no, it is not beneficial to us so far as I can tell. I think the Saudis have us by the balls. But I don't blame "oil" as a substance. I'm really glad I can drive my car and I thank the oil companies that bring it to my corner of the globe in Farmville, VA for a couple bucks a gallon. I'm amazed at how cheap it is.
If there was some substance we could all grow in our closets for free that would run our cars, ambulances, buses, planes, and ships, then I'd be all for it.
I just don't think its fair to criticize something without offering any kind of practical solution at all.
I think that there was this one guy at hempfest this one time who was trying to tell me about that...I'm pretty sure it made a lot more sense to him than me.
-
Yeah but I thought this was a discussion about whether or not oil companies have a responsibility to pursue alternative energy research, if these companies are associated with governmental organisations that has to be taken into account. I know there is an ideal of how a purely profit-focussed capitalistic corporation should work and it doesn't sound too bad to me but we shouldn't confuse the ideal with the reality.
Oil companies have a responsibility to lose money? I thought oil companies have a responsibility to pursue cheap, efficient oil.
Alternative energy companies have a responsibility to pursue alternative energy.
Beef companies dont have a responsibility to pursue chicken, coal companies dont have a responsibility to pursue nuclear power, beer companies dont have a responsibility to pursue liquor.
hoss and buggy companies didnt have a responsibility to pursue cars, whalers didnt have a responsibility to pursue oil, the post office didnt have a responsibility to pursue email.
-
I was merely saying what I thought the topic of conversation was, I think was pretty clear here:
Ideally they could be instrumental in getting us to that next stage since they have more money and expertise than anyone else in the energy sector but I'd settle for them not tearing down the people they choose to see as their opponents too.
that I don't think it is their responsibility but it would be productive (and probably profitable) for them to do so. In any case it is certainly irresponsible and immoral of them to interfere with research that is a threat to their business.
The only reason I brought it up at all is that I'm not quite sure what you're arguing anymore. Concerns were brought up about corporations conspiring to create artificially high prices, you said:
Do you actually believe a company wouldn't lower their prices to gain a greater market share than the other guy if they could?
Youre telling me you actually believe that one company is giving up billions in potential profit just to keep up some conspiracy to gauge the consumer?
But when we bring up the RIAA and OPEC they somehow don't count? Like I said earlier, I know you have an ideal of how capitalism should work but you have to accept that (at current at least) it stops acting in an ideal manner as soon as these big companies realise they have the power to ensure their profits using marketing and political influence rather than by providing value to their customers.
-
A couple of articles for you:
This guy makes powerful cars that run on alternate fuels (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/30/14161/066)--something Detroit's always told us is impossible--using standard parts.
Here's one on an X-prize style competition to build a car that gets 100 MPG. (http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-01/ff_100mpg) Sounds like some of these guys might just pull it off.
Have our big automaker friends been unable to bring us these innovations previously because they couldn't? Or because they didn't want to?
-
earlier, I know you have an ideal of how capitalism should work but you have to accept that (at current at least) it stops acting in an ideal manner as soon as these big companies realise they have the power to ensure their profits using marketing and political influence rather than by providing value to their customers.
They have these powers due to government interventions in the forms of protections, permissions, tax breaks, etc. Get the government out of the market and you may find that it works a whole lot better.
That said: It looks like along the way the word DEPENDENCE fell out of this argument. The issue in my mind is DEPENDENCE on foreign oil. We should be looking for alternatives to DEPENDING on foreign oil. That may mean continued development of our own resources, such as better and cheaper methods for extracting oil from shale, or coming to an agreement on developing a minimally environmentally impacting plan for tapping into the oil fields under the ANWR.
As for the 'oil companies' not selling chicken or whatever the hell that was...in a market, a rational actor will look to the future to assess risk to the business from competition, rising costs or dwindling resources. That is why several of the biggest companies are not 'oil' companies anymore. They call themselves 'energy companies' and they are looking to the future, as any rational actor in a market would do. You can't argue market, market, market and then not acknowledge that successful companies are acting and will continue to act in their best long-term interests.
http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7010
http://www.conocophillips.com/social/energy_tomorrow/index.htm
-
As for the 'oil companies' not selling chicken or whatever the hell that was...in a market, a rational actor will look to the future to assess risk to the business from competition, rising costs or dwindling resources. That is why several of the biggest companies are not 'oil' companies anymore. They call themselves 'energy companies' and they are looking to the future, as any rational actor in a market would do. You can't argue market, market, market and then not acknowledge that successful companies are acting and will continue to act in their best long-term interests.
http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7010
http://www.conocophillips.com/social/energy_tomorrow/index.htm
Im well aware of the "energy company" trend. I was responding to the idea that oil companies have a "responsibility" to provide alternative energies. They do not. They may choose to pursue alternative technologies because they are acting in rational self interest, but they don't have some altruistic responsibility to the world to do something they may not be good at. Oil/Energy Company investment in alternative energy solutions comes out of their own self interest, not a "responsibility"
-
They do have responsibilities to their shareholders. Given the level of importance energy has in terms of the well being of the people and the economy, it could easily be argued that these companies have a strong moral and ethical responsibility to make rational decisions that impact not only the present but also the future. I think in point of fact they do have a responsibility to respond to the changing political, social, and physical environments in order to continue to provide a necessary resource. The threat of nationalization due to their importance is surely a big factor in their continuing to act rationally.
I'm still confused about how you can divorce the rational action argument from the market forces argument. These companies can not but explore alternatives and develop the future in order to survive in the market.
-
I'm still confused about how you can divorce the rational action argument from the market forces argument. These companies can not but explore alternatives and develop the future in order to survive in the market.
I'm not. Where do you see me doing that? I agree with every point you've made. The Austrian school of economic thought, the one I subscribe to, is exactly the marriage of individual rational self interested action and market effects of those actors.
-
More linkery for ya: 10 myths about Canadian health care. (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i)
-
So according that argument, we would never have had cars in the first place. I mean, the hoss and buggy makers had all the money, right? Why would anyone have invested in a car if the hoss and buggy is where all the money was?
Why would anyone have invested in oil? That stuff is really expensive to find and produce and transport and refine and pump. The whale blubber dudes had all the money right? Why do we need oil when obviously whale blubber was where the money was?
Actually, steam-powered cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car) hit the market around the same time as gas-powered ones, but thanks to path-dependency (I'm sure I don't have to define that term for you), we've boxed ourselves into an oily corner both economically and technologically. If the time and money that has been spent developing gasoline-powered vehicles over the last hundred years or so had been put into steam-powered vehicles, we'd be filling our cars' tanks from the garden hose.
Of course, there's a major water shortage around these parts right now, so maybe that wouldn't be preferable.
-
Actually, steam-powered cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car) hit the market around the same time as gas-powered ones, but thanks to path-dependency (I'm sure I don't have to define that term for you), we've boxed ourselves into an oily corner both economically and technologically. If the time and money that has been spent developing gasoline-powered vehicles over the last hundred years or so had been put into steam-powered vehicles, we'd be filling our cars' tanks from the garden hose.
Of course, there's a major water shortage around these parts right now, so maybe that wouldn't be preferable.
We'd still have to burn something to heat the water to make the steam.
-
I think that there was this one guy at hempfest this one time who was trying to tell me about that...I'm pretty sure it made a lot more sense to him than me.
But for real, I am pretty sure the first fords ran on peanut and hemp.
-
Actually, steam-powered cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car) hit the market around the same time as gas-powered ones, but thanks to path-dependency (I'm sure I don't have to define that term for you), we've boxed ourselves into an oily corner both economically and technologically. If the time and money that has been spent developing gasoline-powered vehicles over the last hundred years or so had been put into steam-powered vehicles, we'd be filling our cars' tanks from the garden hose.
Of course, there's a major water shortage around these parts right now, so maybe that wouldn't be preferable.
AW is right, this has little to do with path dependency and boxing into corners and more to do with the fact that it takes a lot more energy to boil water than it does to combust gasoline fumes.
-
And steam engines are way heavier and wonkier than internal combustion engines, and way more likely to explode upon failure, showering occu##### and passersby with high-pressure, hi-temperature steam.
A-Rach, where I thought you were splitting that argument was where you contended that the 'oil companies' as you call them have no responsibility to develop alternatives (or sell the old-tyme taste of chickeny-tasting chicken, for that matter). My contention was that they indeed do, due to rational self-interest. So if you are in agreement that they do have that responsibility, due to rational action, then I agree that we agree. I just didn't see that we were agreeing.
-
Personally I'm holding out for my hydrogen fission plant. 2030's the goal people.
-
Personally I'm holding out for my hydrogen fission plant. 2030's the goal people.
Im holding out for my flying car that runs on hopes and dreams.
-
Im holding out for my flying car that runs on hopes and dreams.
If they invent one that runs on smug iconoclasm you'll be able to fly it to Saturn.
-
Wow, I usually don't go in for snarkiness, but that was gold.
-
I was starting to regret catching up on this whole thread, but no longer. AW, you. Are. Rad.
-
High fives, AW.
Without reading pages 1-7, I think my number one election issue is the war. McCain is for it (well, only for the next 10,000 years or so) so I voted Obama. Plus, I like Obama. I think it's time we had a president that is smarter than the average American. When was the last time that was true? Nixon?
-
I dunno, Clinton and the first Bush were both well-above-average minds... it's just that Clinton was too quick to compromise to maintain power and the first Bush was simply a pawn of energy interests... but they were both smart dudes in theory.
And Carter was certainly a heavily-educated cat, whether you agreed with him or not.
Ford, second Bush, Reagan, yeah... middling intellects, definitely. But that's three outta six, y'know?
And whether you agree with her or not or personally like her or not, Hillary's brilliant intellectually... at least in a memory/detail-oriented sorta way, would probably score higher than Obama in terms of raw intelligence quotent, for whatever it matters.
I'd definitely stick McCain in with Ford, though... heavy on valour, low on sense.
-
Oh yeah, come on, Clinton was smart. Lack of book-learnin' was not that man's problem.
-
The dude had hell of book learnin', but I don't think he made very good decisions.
Of course, W. likes to think of himself as The Decider so maybe it's better some people know their limits and don't decide too much.
-
maybe it's better some people know their limits and don't decide too much.
This is why a contrarian congress is a good thing. Any time one party ends up dominating the executive and legislative branches, the hoss of Government grabs the bit between its teeth and runs headlong into disaster. People ask me how I'm going to vote in upcoming elections and I always answer, "Gridlock". Sometimes all Phil Hartmann as Admiral Stockdale-style.
-
The dude had hell of book learnin', but I don't think he made very good decisions.
Of course, W. likes to think of himself as The Decider so maybe it's better some people know their limits and don't decide too much.
Gerald Ford was your ideal president. I think we could use a Ford if there wasnt so much deciding that needs to be undid
-
I think we could use another Roosevelt.
No, not that one. The other one.
-
I think we could use another Roosevelt.
No, not that one. The other one.
(http://images.wikia.com/muppet/images/5/56/RooseveltFranklin.jpg)
-
Looks like The Mayor could use another can.
-
(http://images.wikia.com/muppet/images/5/56/RooseveltFranklin.jpg)
HELLS YES. I think we'd all be better off if the cast of Sesame Street ran our government