Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:Well, what are the reasons for going abroad?

Because a degree from Oxford or Cambridge carries a lot of weight for example. And in this modern world international experience is a handy thing to have in many fields.

Surely seeing the world isn't one of them.

It's probably nice to go somewhere less barbarous.

That's funny for you to say seeing as though the public schools in norfolk got longer holidays than my old high school did, and we were in the same state.

Its also funny that they had an easier GPA scale than I did.

halonachos wrote:And yes those stafford loans don't count. They aren't used to fund the school specifically. While a state collects taxes and distributes them among universities in the state only, the stafford loan is given to a prospective student for them to pay for tuition for any college across the nation and more often than not, you'll get screwed over by the amount they loan. My loan didn't even cover the base cost of my classes and I was only taking 14 credit hours.

That fact that you often get screwed (How do you get screwed? You're getting nearly free money) is irrelevant. Its still money to be used for the express purpose of obtaining an education. It is funding no matter how you slice it; especially as it is restricted to accredited institutions. And let's not even get into the Federal research grants which universities are so often afraid of losing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:That's funny for you to say seeing as though the public schools in norfolk got longer holidays than my old high school did, and we were in the same state.

Its also funny that they had an easier GPA scale than I did.

How is that related to anything that's been said? What are you talking about?

ffs all this university talk is vering this topic completely of course.

I only brought it up to inform halonachos that all the medical breakthroughs he was lavishing all over the US healthcare system were in fact not much to do with the US' private healthcare system and in fact more to do with largely publicly funded universities in the US.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:As far as how the schools compare, I don't know who wins, or if anyone truly wins for that matter.

I mean to compare the US school to another country is disasterous. I mean we all have different policies, like japan will take those who don't pass enough out of school and teach them a trade. IIRC.

Also, like I have said before, the schools are run by city government. The schools I went to had "academy" programs that included an extra class in a specific field while the next city over doesn't have anything like that.

That's incorrect. Public schools are overseen by the district board, which is itself an extension the state board. Private schools are overseen by their own board, and mus qualify for accreditation with the state. Well, they don't have to, but it would stupid of them not to do so. However, we weren't talking about the public education system. We were talking about the university system, which is a different beast altogether.

That's why I was saying that they are run by city, to disprove what you had said earlier. You forgot about that point I guess. Most of the time I have been irrelevent is when you forget a point you had made earlier.

Also, the only reason I brought this up is because reds8n did.

where did Watson and Crick do their work again...?

Anyway : I wasn't raising any issues to do with education, no weasling out on that excuse, I merely used a throw away to such pointing out the obvious flaw in the numbers mentioned for Noble Prizes.

.... I was so tempted to make a Norfolk turkey joke of some kind but sometimes you just have to chicke.... I'll get me coat.

There is a difference between state, local, and federal government. The feds don't listen, the state almost does, and the local will. I support state and local, the fed is beginning to tick me off.

OT
With this healthcare thing, we're going to have to create a whole new agency of bureaucrats and pay them wages and then build a building for them and buy a bunch of red tape. Not only that, but they're responsible for healthcare giving across the nation. If they made a plan, it should be a donation(not a tax) and run either by city or state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Way different norfolk, we keep military stuff in ours.

halonachos wrote:Also, the only reason I brought this up is because reds8n did.

whoever brought it up you still used the idea of medical breakthroughs to support the current US healthcare system. There are plenty of your posts I could quote if you want me to.

The basic point is that if you look at key indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy, the USA is roughly at the same level as other developed countries (UK, Canada, Japan) but is spending roughly twice the GDP to get there.

Apparently this can be explained by the fact that the governments of the UK, Canada and Japan conceal half their deaths in order to reinforce the argument that the US healthcare system is inefficient and needs reform.

halonachos wrote:
That's why I was saying that they are run by city, to disprove what you had said earlier. You forgot about that point I guess. Most of the time I have been irrelevent is when you forget a point you had made earlier.

What's run by the city? Public schools are run by the school district, which is independent of municipal government, and overseen by the state school board. Universities aren't overseen by anyone accept the state accreditation board, and the federal bureaucrats who monitor the distribution of funds with respect to research.

You brought cities into this for no reason at all. They aren't relevant in any way. Not to public schools, and certainly not to universities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:There is a difference between state, local, and federal government. The feds don't listen, the state almost does, and the local will. I support state and local, the fed is beginning to tick me off.

There is no difference from the standpoint of publicly funded versus privately funded.

halonachos wrote:
With this healthcare thing, we're going to have to create a whole new agency of bureaucrats and pay them wages and then build a building for them and buy a bunch of red tape. Not only that, but they're responsible for healthcare giving across the nation. If they made a plan, it should be a donation(not a tax) and run either by city or state.

Yeah, if its a single payer system, but that isn't the only way to involve the government in healthcare.

As for your donation theory: utter nonsense. Morality must always cave to reality.

Well, whatwhat, I do remember what I said so no you don't need to quote me.

Now killkrazy, I looked this up and used that only because I couldn't find the study reported in a Forbes magazine article that compared infant mortality by birth weight and it showed that american infants were better off than their counterparts. I will not say that it is true until I can post it here for the sake of mankind.


Dogma, you elect a school board, and the district it governs is defined as:

A school district is a unique body corporate and politic, usually with districts being coequal to that of a city or a county, and has similar powers including taxation and eminent domain.

So I will gladly say that we are both right because it could be either a county or a state. Where I live its done by city.

There is no difference in definiton between the levels of government, but the way they are applied is different. For example, a state government isn't going to fund the military and won't fund anything outside of the state. While the cities public funds will go towards things within city limits.



And how is my donation theory nonsense? If a musical group made more money through donations than they did through normal retail prices, then we could hope that it would repeat itself.

We would hope that those uninsured would donate because 1) Its tax free and 2) It would help them and others in the same boat as them. At least those that pay taxes because if you don't pay taxes then you can't donate obviously.
Also, about 1/6 of americans lack insurance which means that the remaining 5/6 are left to choose to pay or not. If we go with the polls(50-50) then that means that half of the 5/6 would donate( so 5/12 of america would donate). We could guess that those who support it would donate generously and could surpass the amount they would have given in taxes. We can take into fact that most of the rich are philanthropists and would be willing to also donate more than they would get taxed.

This could make up for the remaining 5/12 of americans that don't support it.

However, money is a powerful motivator as well, so those that don't believe in it may donate some just to get a tax deduction.


The reality is that morality is always present and is a strong motivator, however money can also sway those that don't follow morality. That's the reality of things.

halanchos wrote:And how is my donation theory nonsense? If a musical group made more money through donations than they did through normal retail prices, then we could hope that it would repeat itself.

Could that be... a platform of hope? Perhaps and maybe? Dude, expecting people to do this kind of stuff is just ridiculous, the outcome will be minimal. If people would donate anyway, why not let the government provide some more efficiency by requiring them to? Oh, well I think I would rather get a new pair of shoes this month... or something like that.

Anyway, here is a really good clip from a talkshow addressing some very important issues and I feel pretty much the same way as the talkshow host about this one.




Oh... and this part too .

Well my question is this, if the government already spends "too much" then are we trying to cuts costs by creating a new program?

I see this, we spend a lot more GDP already right?
So what are we doing with this new program?
If it increases costs then won't our GDP spent just increase further?
If we cut costs and according to this guy the government is very efficient so we can't cut the governments' administrative costs then we must cut their care costs.

Unless we remove the costs of private insurers.

HARDCORE!!!



The cycle never ends... EVER!!!




This one works well too...

halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history, then yes, we have far less winners.

I already addressed this, when I pointed out that the medical system in the US 50 or 60 years ago was better than the systems in Europe, hence the high numbers of Nobel prizes given to US citizens back then. I then pointed out that we're talking about the system right now, and that should actually be concerned that a system that so totally dominated medical research 50 years ago is now just another country.

But then you went off on talking about how recent should be the last two years, only to return to your position of defending US healthcare on the basis of the number of Nobel prizes won 50 years ago. It's safe to say your position is quite incoherent.

Too bad some of you guys don't count all born babies as living.

I've heard this a lot of times from people defending US healthcare. It is true that there are difference in methodology, but these differences are minor, not a factor in every country with a superior mortality rate, and cannot account for the scale of the difference in figures. They also cannot account for the reality that US healthcare is not improving its infant mortality rates, while leading countries continue to improve their's.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR

I found this informative and possibly even inspiring. Now all Obama has to do is push this freaking reform with all the force he has at his disposal.



This too... .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxjaPBsmLIM&feature=related

Okay, this is from June. What the hell happened? Am I completely delusional to actually listen to the undertones of Obama's address? Speaking of which, does he have an official address to the nation on this issue? Why does the media have so much control over this much misinformation?




Man... the confusion dothe set into my mind yet again, but now I truly and honestly do not know what to expect besides change. Maybe this is a trick within a trick that we are playing on ourselves, but I think that Obama is going to re-label the change so that he can look like a hero and get the next election. That is fine, as long as it works out in the publics favor. So far I have not been thoroughly convinced that anything besides single payer will remedy the problems that this issue was set in from the get-go. It is about all sorts of nonsense besides health care reform now, and I can't even think straight about it at this point.

Obama rests his entire career on this, and hope to see some sort of amazing batting average emerge on all of these issues. Just knock them out of the park, keep it factual like the Cash for Clunkers program and these issues will breeze by like Sunday lemonade.

halonachos wrote:Well my question is this, if the government already spends "too much" then are we trying to cuts costs by creating a new program?

I see this, we spend a lot more GDP already right?
So what are we doing with this new program?
If it increases costs then won't our GDP spent just increase further?
If we cut costs and according to this guy the government is very efficient so we can't cut the governments' administrative costs then we must cut their care costs.

Unless we remove the costs of private insurers.

That is the key point.

Savings in US healthcare expenditure would come from the reduction in profits of private insurers (as well as economies of scale.) That's why there is such fierce lobbying against it.

But the removal of profits leads to the comapnies failing and going under, making the government healthcare the only healthcare available...

Also,read this, although you could say that it's just a bunch of lies as well.

notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey.

Comedy gold.

Also, healthcare alone doesn't always lead to life span.

forbes wrote:The average American works 25 hours a week; the average Frenchman 18; the average Italian a bit more than 16 and a half. Even the hardest-working Europeans--the British, who put in an average of 21 and half hours--are far more laid-back than their American cousins.

Compared with Europeans, Americans are more likely to be employed and more likely to work longer hours--employed Americans put in about three hours more per week than employed Frenchmen. Most important, Americans take fewer (and shorter) vacations. The average American takes off less than six weeks a year; the average Frenchman almost 12. The world champion vacationers are the Swedes, at 16 and a half weeks per year.

More working hours lead to increased stress and an increase in the amount of fast food that will be consumed on the way to work or while waiting for a meeting.

If we take these into account then we see a trend that follows the average lifespan. The UK works a little less and has a slightly higher life span. This is just a guess at a theory, but I think working hours may affect lifespan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are europeans lazy, no, its just that we don't like to take vacations sometimes. Probably because of family.

halonachos wrote:But the removal of profits leads to the comapnies failing and going under, making the government healthcare the only healthcare available...

Also,read this, although you could say that it's just a bunch of lies as well.

It hasn't in the UK, France or Japan.

The USA's infant mortality is one of the highest in the developed world.

It's not very high. I mean it's something like 5.6 per 10,000 live births compared to 4.8 in the UK or whatever.

The UK's stillbirth rate is higher than the USA's rate.

The point is that you are paying twice the money that we are to achieve these rates.

Well, again you have to look at stillbirth's and the reporting of what is a stillbirth. He also says that we have a larger population of people that tend to have multiple births or premature births.

I'm going to find that damned study showing that american infants have a better survival weight when comparing birth weights, I swear I will. It's my personal holy grail.

Here is an interesting clip about FOX NEWS regarding the Health Care reform debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tknEpQ6f2Gw&videos=IjPxjAOgX_U&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1

Here is Rachel Maddow on Filibusting... funny word, oh goddamit... that is what it means. How, does that ... hmmm.




...Wow, so they are cheating in every way possible, how in the frakking hell is that okay? So, when an important issue is up for debate this country is no longer a democracy? What in the frakking hell... that is all I can say right now.

This is not very surprising to me, but it is good that the information is out there now.

There are equivalent tactics in all parliaments.

In the UK, a bill can be 'talked out'. This means that opposition MPs make very long speeches until the time allowed for the bill to be voted on has expired.

In the Japanese Diet they have the 'cow walk'. Opposition MPs simply walk very very slowly from their seat to the podium, when it is their turn to speak.

Of course you can't use these tactics very much, because it pisses off the electorate and they will vote you out of your seat at the next opportunity if they get angry enough.

That's probably easier in the USA than Japan or Britain as you have more regular elections.

Absolutely no ide if this has been brought up yet, as I didn't really fancy ploughing my way through all the posts!

But for all those worried that Social Healthcare would damage the quality....well, if you can afford Private, go Private. It's what I fully intend to do as soon as I can afford, as much for the better quality and faster treatment times as my personal belief that if you can afford to, it's best to unburden the NHS with your own care.

Having Social Healthcare doesn't impact upon the Private sector as much as you might think, if it all. One could argue you are likely to improve the Private sector, as the best Doctors will want higher pay than Social might provide, thus go into private practice.

I cannot help but see the arguments against Social Healthcare as the panic and hysteria of people with big fat fingers in the Private Pie trying to maintain their stake and wealth in it. Which is pretty fething immoral I'm sure you'll agree.

Mad doc grotsnik wrote:I cannot help but see the arguments against Social Healthcare as the panic and hysteria of people with big fat fingers in the Private Pie trying to maintain their stake and wealth in it. Which is pretty fething immoral I'm sure you'll agree.

It pretty much is, and you combine that with the obvious non-partisanship of the Reppies, you get our current situation. The Reppies are even trying to cheat this one out from under everyone's noses as if they are promoting some service to the country. As it stands now the whole situation is starting to look a lot more like a presidential campaign all over again... In case these corporate interests didn't know the election is over, and the other one is not for... years.

I get sickened when a lot of the obvious lies get tied into real debate, and I appreciate the fact that the president addressed that and even inferred responsibility to FOX NEWS in their adventure to get ratings. Man... O'reilly has to be one of the stupidest... wait, Glenn Beck, yeah... trust FOX NEWS .

Oh arr. According to statistics I heard on the BBC, there are some 75,000,000 Americans either without Healthcare, or with inadequate Plans.

Thats pretty much the population of Britain. And you still think Social Healthcare is the Great Satan?

Perhaps you are one of them. And you don't know it because to date you've enjoyed good health. How quickly will you change your tune when things affect you, like a dibilating disease you thought you were covered for strikes you down, and you end up gak creek without a paddle? But of course, you have to be quite spectacularly selfish, or have a vested interest in it's avoidance, to denounce Social Health.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma, you elect a school board, and the district it governs is defined as:

A school district is a unique body corporate and politic, usually with districts being coequal to that of a city or a county, and has similar powers including taxation and eminent domain.

Do you understand the word 'usually'? Or 'coequal' fpr that matter? Nothing in that definitions says 'school districts are equivalent to municipal government'.

halonachos wrote:
So I will gladly say that we are both right because it could be either a county or a state. Where I live its done by city.

I will gladly say that you are wrong. It isn't done by city, anywhere, its done by district. Sometimes districts coincide with cities, but they are not the same.

halonachos wrote:
There is no difference in definiton between the levels of government, but the way they are applied is different. For example, a state government isn't going to fund the military and won't fund anything outside of the state. While the cities public funds will go towards things within city limits.

So there is no difference between levels of government. Sometimes programs outreach municipal bounds, sometimes they don't.

halonachos wrote:
And how is my donation theory nonsense? If a musical group made more money through donations than they did through normal retail prices, then we could hope that it would repeat itself.

Do you want me to put the word 'hope' in bold?

halonachos wrote:
We would hope that those uninsured would donate because 1) Its tax free and 2) It would help them and others in the same boat as them. At least those that pay taxes because if you don't pay taxes then you can't donate obviously.
Also, about 1/6 of americans lack insurance which means that the remaining 5/6 are left to choose to pay or not. If we go with the polls(50-50) then that means that half of the 5/6 would donate( so 5/12 of america would donate). We could guess that those who support it would donate generously and could surpass the amount they would have given in taxes. We can take into fact that most of the rich are philanthropists and would be willing to also donate more than they would get taxed.

Why would they donate generously? What does that follow from?

halonachos wrote:
The reality is that morality is always present and is a strong motivator, however money can also sway those that don't follow morality. That's the reality of things.

Is it now? Are you morally obligated to help the infirm?

So I have been doing a fair amount of research (I prefer the term "looking into" because this is utter madness to comprehend fully) into this whole debate, if you want to call it that. As far as I can tell we are in an extremely tight situation that basically boils down to money, regardless of the political under-tones.

I found this article to be very informative (extremely long and in depth, much easier to understand if it were in a visual or audio-based version.) but it just makes me wish their were smarter news people out there right now... wait... bad comment, perhaps the companies that own all of these journalists should stand up and walk out instead.

Good article vs. all the bad/ummm... what articles I have been reading, not to say that this is better... but it clearly is .

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/08/14/debating-the-presidents-portsmouth-pitch/

BTW... that ping.net thing is:

A.) The government tracking your brain waves
-or-
B.) This http://ryan.ifupdown.com/2009/07/22/what-is-ping-chart-beat-net/ or one of the other many results and less researched opinions that google can easily provide.

This is Keith hennessey, who is Republican, and quite frankly I would like some form of verification of this guys points because of that. Not to say that I trust the Democrats completely, but they show a better face to put it lightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Hennessey

Dogma, how in the hell are you going to say that it isn't done by city when in fact I live in a state that has school systems done by the city. My experience with this being true trumps your belief that it isn't. I was trying to reach some middle ground and be nice, but no.

Am I morally obligated to help the infirm, yes. Am I morally obligated to pay money to help those who can't afford care, yes.

However, I am also morally obligated to take care of my family, with my family outweighing strangers in any situation. I am also morally obligated to take care of myself.

Seeing as though we are in a recession, I am interested in keeping money within my family and I am therefore doing a greater good in terms of quality of that good than if I just gave money to a homeless person.


And why would people donate generously you ask? Perhaps it will be because they believe in the cause and want to see it put in place. I believe in civic league sports and am more willing to donate to civic leagues than I am to a homeless bum. Why, because I believe that the civic league instills values and that giving money to a bum does relatively nothing besides short term benefits.