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.
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
Did you even read the criticism section? (SNIP)
Ah, my bad, sorry, I had assumed you could differenciate between opinions and facts. I stand corrected !
Seriously, learn the differences, it might come handy one day.
whembly wrote:I'm done trying to convey where I'm coming from. Sorry man.
No, you misunderstand. I know exactly where you're coming from: baseless ideology.
And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm not going to try to sway you from yours; I know better than that. Nobody ever changes their mind on the Internet.
I just want you to stop confusing opinion with fact.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
whembly wrote:I'm done trying to convey where I'm coming from. Sorry man.
No, you misunderstand. I know exactly where you're coming from: baseless ideology.
And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm not going to try to sway you from yours; I know better than that. Nobody ever changes their mind on the Internet.
I just want you to stop confusing opinion with fact.
I'm just pointing out that the WHO chartisn't fact as the methodolgy used has really high subjective weighting factors:
Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
----Overall or average : 25%
----Distribution or equality : 25% <---subjective
Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
----Overall or average : 12.5%
----Distribution or equality : 12.5% <---subjective
Fair financial contribution : 25% This here I have the biggest issue. How is "fairness" defined?
Look... I don't object to the premise that there are issues with our system and we can have an honest debate about it. I just objected to that chart shoved in my face as if it's end-all be-all end of discussion thingamagig.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote:
whembly wrote:
HudsonD wrote:
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
Did you even read the criticism section? (SNIP)
Ah, my bad, sorry, I had assumed you could differenciate between opinions and facts. I stand corrected !
Seriously, learn the differences, it might come handy one day.
So... whenever a big impressive organization release some findings and put out a big one page summary on what it means, you'll "take their word on it"?
Learn the different between raw data and interpretation...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:Paul Ryan is now having some problems in the spotlight as people are digging in his past.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
Interesting... you don't see that very often... a politician's mea culpa.
FWIW, I didn't like the whole stimulus snafu as is was a panicked reflex...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/08/17 14:13:33
Whenever a politician thinks that they can get away with it by offering a quick and quiet apology and then moving on changing nothing about how they act, they'll be glad to give an apology an then ignore you.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Whenever a politician thinks that they can get away with it by offering a quick and quiet apology and then moving on changing nothing about how they act, they'll be glad to give an apology an then ignore you.
Yeah... that's true... but, it's all too often that they'd just dig in.
Apparently he hates so strongly it is forming in to a glowing ball in his hands.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
whembly wrote:Interesting... you don't see that very often... a politician's mea culpa.
FWIW, I didn't like the whole stimulus snafu as is was a panicked reflex...
Paul Ryan may be a guy with a lot of integrity. He might be a real honest, good human being. He is probably doing what he really thinks is best -- most people do. Even George Bush was doing what he thought he was right. Heck, I would argue that even Dick Cheney did what he thought was best for the country.
People like the character Cersei Lannister are the rarity and not the norm.
Just because I don't agree with Paul Ryans fiscal policy does not mean I hate him. Many people seem to blur disagreeing with someone's policy to hate of the actual person.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/08/17 15:46:39
I loved that game! I was the king in that game!
*throws down gauntlet*
I'll challenge anyone to any StreetFighter series (I'm partial to Super Street Fighter II Turbo).
That obama picture by himself is screaming for more memes... like 'powah, in the palm of my hands...'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Interesting... you don't see that very often... a politician's mea culpa.
FWIW, I didn't like the whole stimulus snafu as is was a panicked reflex...
Paul Ryan may be a guy with a lot of integrity. He might be a real honest, good human being. He is probably doing what he really thinks is best -- most people do. Even George Bush was doing what he thought he was right. Heck, I would argue that even Dick Cheney did what he thought was best for the country.
People like the character Cersei Lannister are the rarity and not the norm.
Just because I don't agree with Paul Ryans fiscal policy does not mean I hate him. Many people seem to blur disagreeing with someone's policy to hate of the actual person.
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
Which is better than outright denial of ALL medical care except for the most dire of emergency service to a large - and, for the past several years, swiftly growing - segment of the population.
Besides, those who have the money can always BUY extra care at need. I don't see that part ever changing in America. There will always be 'for profit' medical institutions that will cater to those who don't want to wait. The rest of us would be delighted to NOT go bankrupt each and every time we hit a major medical issue.
Besides, providing health care for the poor will keep them from waiting until their condition gets so bad they have to go to the emergency room and make use of the single most expensive part of the American health care system... which by law the hospital MUST provide regardless of how - or even if - they can pay for it. Getting them care early means fewer severe issues, which saves EVERYONE money in the long run.
Or did you actually believe the hospitals just eat that cost intead of passing it on as 'administrative overhead' to the customers that actually pay their bills?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:Paul Ryan is now having some problems in the spotlight as people are digging in his past.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
Lovely. Ryan doesn't believe in the goverment helping indviduals in need... but he sure wants the government to give handouts to corporations!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 19:37:12
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
Which is better than outright denial of ALL medical care except for the most dire of emergency service to a large - and, for the past several years, swiftly growing - segment of the population.
You're still not seeing the bigger picture. When de facto rationing occurs in this hypothetical world, the standard of care would decrease. And it's debatable they'd be preferable.
Besides, those who have the money can always BUY extra care at need. I don't see that part ever changing in America. There will always be 'for profit' medical institutions that will cater to those who don't want to wait. The rest of us would be delighted to NOT go bankrupt each and every time we hit a major medical issue.
True dat... just don't believe that socialize medicine (or, technically a "single-payer" system like Canada has) is the way to go in order to increase access to care for poor folks.
Besides, providing health care for the poor will keep them from waiting until their condition gets so bad they have to go to the emergency room and make use of the single most expensive part of the American health care system... which by law the hospital MUST provide regardless of how - or even if - they can pay for it. Getting them care early means fewer severe issues, which saves EVERYONE money in the long run.
You're right... because everyone goes to the path of least resistent. It's too EASY to use the ED for simple cold and such... kind of a "catch-22" situation.
Let's switch gears... remember in my previous posts that there were some good stuff (a few) the new ACA act? This acts compels healthcare professional to do something thats never really been institutionalized. I know most Hospital/PhysicianGroup Systems will continue to do this even IF the ACA act is repealed...
That is, each visit to your primary care physician/specialist/hospitalist will be "managed" by a "case manager". What this person does is that if your doctor prescribed you medications/lab tests/mri/whatever test... then that case manager attempts to make sure that you did go to the followup appointments. And if the patient comes back later for the same problem and if the institution cannot proved that the case manager did their job, then medicare won't reimburse the Dr... and private insurance has indicated that they'll require this too.
Or did you actually believe the hospitals just eat that cost intead of passing it on as 'administrative overhead' to the customers that actually pay their bills?
Careful... there... here's the kicker. Most large Hospital System do not get any reimbursement for approx 50% (this will obviously vary) of the people walking in through the doors.
Yes, some of the cost do get shifted over to those who can pay for their insurance. Most hospitals also get $$$ from trust/foundations that are enormous. Some hospitals are also teaching locations that can get education fundings. And, on and on...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:Paul Ryan is now having some problems in the spotlight as people are digging in his past.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
Lovely.Ryan doesn't believe in the goverment helping indviduals in need... but he sure wants the government to give handouts to corporations!
Do you have a source to support this statement?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 20:05:17
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
+
whembly wrote:Let's switch gears... remember in my previous posts that there were some good stuff (a few) the new ACA act? This acts compels healthcare professional to do something thats never really been institutionalized. I know most Hospital/PhysicianGroup Systems will continue to do this even IF the ACA act is repealed...
That is, each visit to your primary care physician/specialist/hospitalist will be "managed" by a "case manager". What this person does is that if your doctor prescribed you medications/lab tests/mri/whatever test... then that case manager attempts to make sure that you did go to the followup appointments. And if the patient comes back later for the same problem and if the institution cannot proved that the case manager did their job, then medicare won't reimburse the Dr... and private insurance has indicated that they'll require this too.
All these people talking about having their care rationed and managed. Good thing we don't have to worry about private companies deciding when we need to go to the doctor, what medicines we need, and how soon we need to get kicked out of the hospital because they want to ration our care. Would be horrible if people are all up in arms about some hypothetical scenario about government rationing of care only to find out that insurance companies are doing that already.
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
+
whembly wrote:Let's switch gears... remember in my previous posts that there were some good stuff (a few) the new ACA act? This acts compels healthcare professional to do something thats never really been institutionalized. I know most Hospital/PhysicianGroup Systems will continue to do this even IF the ACA act is repealed...
That is, each visit to your primary care physician/specialist/hospitalist will be "managed" by a "case manager". What this person does is that if your doctor prescribed you medications/lab tests/mri/whatever test... then that case manager attempts to make sure that you did go to the followup appointments. And if the patient comes back later for the same problem and if the institution cannot proved that the case manager did their job, then medicare won't reimburse the Dr... and private insurance has indicated that they'll require this too.
= Cognitive dissonance.
true... can't argue against that...
But, it's the participants in the market that will continue to drive this if ACA is repealed. So while I hate the ACA act as a whole, that doesn't mean there some good stuff in there that we'd like to try.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:All these people talking about having their care rationed and managed. Good thing we don't have to worry about private companies deciding when we need to go to the doctor, what medicines we need, and how soon we need to get kicked out of the hospital because they want to ration our care. Would be horrible if people are all up in arms about some hypothetical scenario about government rationing of care only to find out that insurance companies are doing that already.
/sarcasm
There... fixed it for ya
So... what's the real issue then?
Is healthcare a right... as in, is it the same sort of right similar our Bill of Rights? If so, then let's get started, call the Constitution Convention and amend the consitution. That way, this unequivocally empowers the government take over/manage the healthcare industry. Only then, you can have equal-care for everyone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 21:18:56
The vast majority of Americans would receive equal or better care for a lower cost under a single payer or socialist system. If I look at it from a purely capitalistic perspective absent of any moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, then it is directly beneficial to me for the US to have single payer system.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
youbedead wrote:The vast majority of Americans would receive equal or better care for a lower cost under a single payer or socialist system. If I look at it from a purely capitalistic perspective absent of any moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, then it is directly beneficial to me for the US to have single payer system.
Okay... riddle me this then...
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
youbedead wrote:The vast majority of Americans would receive equal or better care for a lower cost under a single payer or socialist system. If I look at it from a purely capitalistic perspective absent of any moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, then it is directly beneficial to me for the US to have single payer system.
Okay... riddle me this then...
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
It depends what you're talking about, currently 12 out of the top 20 bio-medical corporations are located in the US, however the china, india and brazil are expected to meet or surpass the US rate of medical innovation primarily due to a rise in funding and education in those countries coupled with the inverse here. (one of the things I didn't like about the affordable care act is the increased tax on medical devices) If you include stem cell research then for obvious reasons the US has very little research, I believe the UK is viewed as a current world leader. However despite the fact that the discoveries are often made here the US market is generally far behind the European market for when we see those innovations implemented, often 5-10 years behind.
Here's a decent summary of the PwC survey on medical innovation
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
The cost of medical research has relatively little to do with the cost of medical care. Sort of like how the cost of academic research has relatively little to do with the cost of higher education.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/18 12:43:37
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
Are not technology advances usually discovered through government funded research -- being in the form of research grants, military research, etc?
In the US a large number of advances are actually made through private bio-medical corporations, though if you want pure science then you will usually have to do it with gov money as their not much money in it
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Romney: "[O]ur campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature, this is just a diversion," Romney said. He added, "I would love to have a setting where we only talk about issues." source
Translation: I deserve to be president because I'm a business leader, but since it turns out that I'm the guy that drives your business into the ground in pursuit of my personal yearly bonus, I don't think my business track record should be something we discuss.
Romney: "Our campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature, this is just a diversion,"
Good fething God, let Ryan take the interviews. Being ambushed by Chuck Todd is like being ambushed by a coffee.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
azazel the cat wrote: Romney: "Our campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature, this is just a diversion,"
Good fething God, let Ryan take the interviews. Being ambushed by Chuck Todd is like being ambushed by a coffee.
I don't see how you can support someone who is so clueless and out of touch that his only chance of not being found out is to hide him from scrutiny.
...huh. Something is weird with the quote function...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/19 07:04:38
d-usa wrote: All these people talking about having their care rationed and managed. Good thing we don't have to worry about private companies deciding when we need to go to the doctor, what medicines we need, and how soon we need to get kicked out of the hospital because they want to ration our care. Would be horrible if people are all up in arms about some hypothetical scenario about government rationing of care only to find out that insurance companies are doing that already.
As a former memeber of the Insurance industry, I endorse this message.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
whembly wrote: Okay, you got me there... from a macro-economic standpoint, government spending could (not always) have a positive impact. What I'm trying to articulate is that all to often "government intervention" is the go-to tool to attempt to address these concerns.
I'm not sure there's much of a debate to be had here. I mean, right now there's little doubt that government spending would grow GDP given the present state of the economy. And while it is true that such spending is only a short term solution, a cyclical downturn in the economy is only a short term problem.
And all of that aside, no matter what stage of economic activity you are when you set a Federal Budget you need to factor in the impact of spending changes on total tax revenue. Ryan didn't, and that leaves his budget as something of a Fisher Price budget.
It's still a more substantive declaration of his political ideas than most any other congressman has managed to produce, mind you, which says a lot about the state of modern politics.
True... I hadn't thought about it much since that was speculated.
And to be fair I'm speculating as well. I have no idea if Rubio was offered it.
Right... but it's all about "context". If a plain jane/joe politician said this, it wouldn't be on anyone's radar. But coming from someone who "coined" the following phrases (and I'm paraphrasing):
"... you didn't build that..."
"...we have the spread the wealth around"
"...etc..."
And let me pre-empt anyone. I don't hate Obama... I don't think he's "working to destroy America"... he truly believes in these kind of things and he's been consistent (I'm not being snarky... in a politician, that's admirable).
Sure, but it has to be recognised each of the above lines has been grossly misrepresented by Romney and his team. That isn't a dig at Romney, as every campaign distorts stuff said by the other side. But it does mean none of the above should used to draw an honest description of Obama's political positions.
I think we're getting there.
I admire your optimism.
That's the disconnect I have with you.. we don't have universal healthcare. Basic healthcare isn't a "right" (whether is should be, that's a different discussion) It's a service oriented industry. This is what we have (the ACA bill doesn't really change that... might mitigate it... ).
So... through combination of bad luck, poor planning, and/or gak hits the fan... yes, medical bills can bankrupt you. At least you have a mechanism to discharge the debt.
If we didn't have that mechanism, then yes, you'd have an argument as it'll be no different that indentured slavery.
You're honestly okay with a system where a person can lose everything they had because they got sick and they either didn't have insurance or their insurance wasn't enough for that problem?
Keep in mind, if that Harvard study is right (not sure if it's been peer reviewed yet)... the 0.0017% of the population had to file for bankruptcy due to these bills.
Exactly how many hundreds of thousands of people does it have to be before its a problem?
CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Not when those price controls are geared towards paying less for drugs and identifying treatments that aren't needed.
Did you know Ryan's budget has the same measures in it? Exactly the same price controls, point for point. Yet Romney and Ryan are out there claiming Obama's price controls will hurt them. Its bizarre.
With other issues... I'd agree with you. See that website I posted previous showing how pull parties are pulling away from each other. But with respect to the HCR bill.
WE. DONT. WANT. IT. Not in it's current iteration...
In Missouri, we passed a non-binding resolution two years ago rejecting the current HCR bill. It passed with 71% approval... that is unheard of on a single-issue platform.
http://kcur.org/post/proposition-c-passes
And yet if you poll the general population on each part of the bill a majority supports each part. But if you ask about HCR they sink it.
I don't just blame Republicans for how they attacked this thing. The Democrats showed a unique combination of incompetence and cowardice that only they can deliver. In the end HCR is unpopular because no-one ever really stood up and argued for it. Obama and a core of Democrats threw it at their party, made it their issue, and then they all stuffed around among themselves until they were backed into a position where they'd be more politically hurt by passing the bill than they would be dropping it.
Throughout no-one actually stood in front of the public and argued for the strong points in the bill.
Interesting about your system...
We vote every 2 years for Rep and 4 for Senator/Prez... ultimately, the responsibility falls on the voters... and most voters don't take the time to research.
We vote every 3 years for our Federal Government (although possibly earlier, as there are no fixed terms, if a government feels it cannot function under the present set up, or feels there is political advantage in an early election they can dissolve parliament and go to election).
It's weird, because we focus on our leaders as much as you do, but we don't actually vote for them. We just vote for our local member, and they all get individually elected same as your House of Reps guys. And then whoever leads the party that has a majority in that house (we call it the Lower House) becomes Prime Minister, which is broadly the same as your Prime Minister.
The weird bit is that because all the focus is on the leaders, people are often entirely unaware of who their local member is. Even though that's the only person they actually voted for.
Huh... interesting. And THANKS! I need to travel more... I'm just an ignorant mid-westerner.
Travel is always good, though having been to America I admit I understand a lot more why you guys don't travel that much, there is a hell of a lot to see there.
And thank YOU for this discussion.
Thanks. I don't know if you'd know who biccat was, as he was probably before your time, but this has been loads more fun than talking to that guy
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
