tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post20033686211343226..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: Republicans Lose in RouteJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-82968740347974235502013-11-01T16:48:22.924-04:002013-11-01T16:48:22.924-04:00Laproach.
I am not going to attempt to change you...Laproach.<br /><br />I am not going to attempt to change your mind at all - In fact I wish you the best in finding the Utopia you seek - now with that said may I ask just one little favor? Just one little favor is all I ask and I'll leave you alone and that is to simply not use gov't as your weapon to take my earnings to support (Financially) your beliefs - that is all that I continue to ask for.<br /><br />Is that so hard? We don't have to believe in the same things and in fact I am glad we don't it makes the world very interesting, but in order for any social planning idea to work it requires the redistribution or reorganization of wealth - it can not and will not stand or work on its own merits. As I explained - the un-natural force is gov't in this - they determine regardless of all the consequences what something costs and in this particular case - something that costs X in today's market suddenly can only demand Y. Those two numbers don't jive so overnight an un-natural force just changed the entire market for whatever X was.<br /><br />Again - believe whatever you want I simply ask that you allow me to exclude myself from the participation (financial burden) of that idea and I wish you only the best success.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-39782675436414249752013-11-01T16:27:46.546-04:002013-11-01T16:27:46.546-04:00Laproach - just one question. In your society - w...Laproach - just one question. In your society - which sounds fantastic BTW - I am going to choose to not work, I am going to choose to not go to school or study or to learn a craft - then because I can I plan to marry and have some kids - are you still going to take care of me? What happens when 50% of the people no longer feel the need to contribute or work - what if I came in your house and took your food because I had none - we still good?Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-78665954512489377102013-11-01T00:52:28.598-04:002013-11-01T00:52:28.598-04:00Part 2
Personally I think the whole cassowary Kami...Part 2<br />Personally I think the whole cassowary Kamikaze routine of the TP will eventually be its own downfall. Simply put, Most non poor Americans have too much to lose to go the extra step of putting their asses (read wealth/ toys/advantages) on the line to go to WAR, as in either direct action as you suggest or allow the TP to risk the lot. That said, Yes, the world AS WE KNOW IT is in dire peril but as I've said before people are largely instinctive based because it's easier than thinking it through. I don't think Homo sapiens are about to go extinct any time soon but They will be thinned out A LOT And yes again America is not going to be immune. <br />Ideology from either side isn't the answer. Ideology works in theory BECAUSE it minimises by simplistically generalises the biggest variable human nature. Non authoritarian Socialism has been tried and has collapse because of human nature wasn't factored in. To be blunt I no more want Occupy movement to run the country any more than the *^@$! TP. They are simply opposites of the same coin all froth and angst. Neither side know what or how to change the system and the human nature that underpins it. Even My much admired Chomsky is big on the problems but not the how and what is the replacement (presumably some form of socialism) will deal with HN. The base fact we in our self important arrogance is that Nature is both interconnected and we ARE A COMUNAL SPECIES and it's not W2FM but W2FU (What's In It For Us) <br />Meanwhile both side are getting more afraid and aggressive over the inevitable change.<br />My view is if there must be panic let it be organised.<br />That folks is all I feel I can contribute so So long and I wish everyone what they would wish for themselves. <br />Peace and contentment. Bye <br />Examinator Ant Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-70707428212151840682013-11-01T00:51:28.837-04:002013-11-01T00:51:28.837-04:00Jon,
As pointed out in my posed URL to him even hi...Jon,<br />As pointed out in my posed URL to him even his side of politics are now saying Enough is enough with shut downs etc. <br />While he won't accept this the reality is that the TP have lost and if they continue to be as obstructionist as they have been they will be progressively further marginalised. <br />Chad's outrageous claim that the TP is a party on it's own merits is hogwash they NEED the GOP to survive.<br /><br />The weakness in the 1st. past the post elections in this context is that it would split the conservative vote.<br /><br />Ask yourself how long would they survive if they split from the Republicans and ran candidates on their own? 1 maybe 2 cycles that would be all DNC.<br /><br />Power inside and out (donors) of the GOP would not stand for that. They NEED a disciplined Republican vote. Karl Rove proved that But his brain fade/ short term thinking was once he'd activated the ignorant mass with emotions and fear how do you control it? A bit like poking a cassowary to get it to move...(an ostrich size bird with a brain the size of a small walnut but the attitude of Tasmanian devil and claws like bayonets that can/will disembowel a human). He started another Business/rich catch 22.<br /><br />The Cassowary shares other features with the TP too:<br />it will never fly,<br />It is so lacking in reason/learning and so instinctual (emotional) single minded, it will attack unnecessarily attack anything that it feels is a threat even to the detriment of its self and its young.<br />Nor does it understand that things have changed <br />And is frightened of anything new. <br />e.g. A male raising chicks came across a parked rangers 4X4 Toyota truck. It saw it's self in the larger than normal side mirrors and attacked the “other male” in the mirror with such ferocity it trashed one side of the panels on the truck and the mirror then went to the other side saw the same other male and started to trash that side. The rangers returning from their heat count of the endangered bird saw a suffering, bloodied male dying and its three defenceless chicks near by.. the male had to be destroyed and the chicks caught for hand raising (social welfare?).<br />Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-11126880368715553332013-10-31T06:30:31.928-04:002013-10-31T06:30:31.928-04:00Not to start yet another digression, Ex, but....
...Not to start yet another digression, Ex, but....<br /><br />one could hope the alternative to FDR's capitalism would be economic democracy. A world where workers keep the fruits of their labor and decide themselves their working conditions. That was the goal of a lot of people in 1917 in Russia and it didn't work out for them. It's hard to say what might have happened here.<br /><br />But capitalism, with it's endless need for expanded consumption, with the death and misery it has imposed throughout the world, isn't sustainable. Check this article from Naomi Klein where she reports on a conference from scientists where the scientists are getting more blunt. Here's the title of one of the presentations. “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activism”<br /><br />http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt<br /><br />FDR saved capitalism. The expanded consumption and increased burning of fossil fuels continued, and today we're at the precipice. It may be already too late. Not sure what would have happened otherwise, but the alternatives can hardly be much worse than what we face today.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-28856511760178654202013-10-30T21:35:04.482-04:002013-10-30T21:35:04.482-04:00Some may understand and forgive me for not coming ...Some may understand and forgive me for not coming back to read posts to this ongoing conversation; however, I do check few lines in my email notifications to see where it's going, and one in particular brought me back to the site: "...an unnatural force like Gov't..."<br /><br />For some reason it seemed odd to refer to government as being an unnatural force. I guess I never really thought of government as a unnatural or natural force...like gravity or electromagnetism, or a force of any kind; however, it did occur to me that government is a rather natural force found in social science. I immediately thought of "Lord of the Flies" in which a group of children naturally gravitated toward the need for an organizational hierarchy in order to function as a group. <br /><br />It also occurred to me that possibly even that little group of heathens, :), would have chosen healthcare for all regardless of rank and power.<br /><br />My thoughts then turned to thinking of how differently people might think about healthcare as a "right" or a "given for all" if we had a population of 100 people. As long as everyone knew and could see each other in terms of their individual abilities (i.e., limited or abundant)and stories; would they choose to deny healthcare to anyone? Would they deny it to their neighbors with limited ability and let them suffer the horrors of untreated diseases and/or let them needlessly die, or would those blessed with more abundant ability, along with those blessed with extreme abundant ability, decide to chip in and provide humanitarian aid?<br /><br />My friends in Canada say they love going to sleep at night knowing that somewhere a wife or a child or a father will continue to be able to keep fighting against their cancer or other disease without undue financial pressure of the threat of bankruptcy.<br /><br />As Americans, I think it is time that we take pride in being able to say we actually take care of our own. Sure, as Mitt Romney said, "you aren't going to die in your apartment...an ambulance will pick you up and take you to the ER..." and most likely live, but at the astronomical ER cost that we all pay. (There is no healthcare fairy, Mr. Romney.) Anyone who does not understand that those of us who pay taxes, insurance premiums and our own medical bills have not been paying more and more for those things in order to cover the uninsured who show up in ERs is beyond ignorant. Many who show up in the ER without insurance are there for a sore throat or other minor ailment...at high priced ER rates. The person to whom Romney refers would have saved us all a lot if he/she had preventative treatment which the ACA will provide for everyone.<br /><br />For me, this is not debatable, so please don't bother to try to shoot holes in my opinion. No one is going to change my opinion or my progressive liberal tendency for social responsibility. I view it as a way to force people to practice the golden rule, christian values, or whatever you want to call them, since people can't seem to do it willingly. <br /><br />If there is an increase in anyone's expenditures to cover this program it will be miniscule, and I truly believe it will reduce what we've all been paying for others anyhow. We, as taxpayers, pay far more to cover the costs of expenditures for which no one receives anything in return (except maybe government contractors, some oil people, etc.). <br /><br />Personally, I agree with my Canadian friends, I don't see how people can sleep at night knowing there are others suffering illnesses for which the relief is withheld purely because of the almighty dollar. I don't see it as a choice, but a duty.<br /><br />Please excuse my digression on this blog, but that seems to be a big theme of this particular blog, lol. I admit my guilt. :)Laprochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16238250089043662238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-11440719549128750982013-10-30T20:33:44.688-04:002013-10-30T20:33:44.688-04:00PS
FDR was one of the 1%ers.PS <br />FDR was one of the 1%ers.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-83926684337789661712013-10-30T20:32:06.301-04:002013-10-30T20:32:06.301-04:00Jon
If I may, I no issues your summation of FDR sa...Jon<br />If I may, I no issues your summation of FDR saving capitalism BUT I'd ask what were his alternatives? A bloody civil war resulting in?? <br /><br />I would would suggest that The US would never have gone Communist simply because the conditions(power) was far more diversified than say Russia in 1917....it was primarily an agrarian country i.e. 1% held the power such as it was. 99% had very little to lose.<br />The US today the 1% holds most of the qualified power BUT there is still a middle class and the standard of living is even for the (sliding scale) poor is infinitely better than of the Russian Peasants circa 1917. i.e. that have more to loose by chaos that their Russian counterpart.<br /><br />The part that the 1% don't seem to fully understand is that the bar is higher today and that the big E (EXPECTATION) can still bite them on the ass. It's THEIR catch 22, the 1% NEEDS the big E to maintain their wealth/Power. If for example Hyper inflation takes over and money and law order breaks down 1917 is possible. Hence from the perspective of the 1%ers the Political parties (particularly GOP) are there to dampen down Expectation from becoming ENTITLEMENT (OF the ignorant masses, mob rule). To them the DNC is more of a safety valve 'giving cake to the peasants' but not enough for it to turn into ENTITLEMENT. Some in the 1%ers have no real sense of the moderation and are financially backing the more extreme/ gullible middle classers (read religious right and Tea Party (sic) ) to reign in more aggressively, the expectations of ENTITLEMENT by the majority by playing on their insecurities/ fears (sense of entitlement) etc . <br /><br />NB this is NOT AN UBER conspiracy scenario more a case of<br /> “Big fleas have smaller fleas on their backs <br /> And these fleas have smaller fleas on their backs to bite them<br />And those fleas have smaller fleas again ad infinitum” Alexander Pope<br /><br />It is human nature to seek status over “lessors” regardless of party or system of Government. However, it is our personal responsibility and Need to support a society for our species survival. Rather than devolve back into animals (see my previous posts along that line)<br />Simply put it is all too complex to allow any one group to blunder around like a blind bull in a china (crockery porcelains etc) shop.<br /><br />In the final analysis it is only the out of touch American 1%ers who fear that universal health care as the slippery slide into anarchy … The reality is it works as well as any other human conceived program. It may even take some of the entitlement steam off as is the case in many many countries around the world.<br />Defeat of the nay extreme nay sayers was inevitable by the sheer weight of numbers (statistical pressure i.e. the mass tends to move to the centre). <br /> <br />FDR knew that to ignore the mass demands would mean the probable destruction of the US as we know it.<br />Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-61232199397252239842013-10-30T18:29:15.876-04:002013-10-30T18:29:15.876-04:00I was hoping for a lot more than that - that was n...I was hoping for a lot more than that - that was not only off topic, but it was disingenuous at best.<br /><br /> Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-61678970234826891622013-10-30T18:27:02.858-04:002013-10-30T18:27:02.858-04:00That is what I thought - twist, deflect and blame ...That is what I thought - twist, deflect and blame it on others.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-80429552511751459402013-10-30T16:18:16.250-04:002013-10-30T16:18:16.250-04:00We're drifting back to the earlier discussion ...We're drifting back to the earlier discussion about how the poor have a choice in the way I can choose to buy several Lamborghini's. That's not really a choice.<br /><br />Why the gun? Well, you know what system requires a gun. It's capitalism, and property rights. Capitalists simply put up stakes, put up fences, and said "This is mine" and to enforce that they have armies. Not only here, but all over the world protecting their access to resources.<br /><br />What prevents you from walking on to my property if you are hungry and grabbing an apple that's fallen to the ground? I get to call the state and with their guns they stop you. Or if I have a hammer and you want to use it. The state stops you with guns. The whole sytem is predicated on violence and the threat of it.<br /><br />So what liberals say is that we have to work within the constraints of capitalism, a system entirely based on violence. And in that system we have a welfare state. What I try to emphasize here is the welfare state was created to SAVE CAPITALISM. Capitalism naturally produces all this inequality, and it gets to the point where the whole thing is near collapse. This is why FDR introduced welfare. He told the wealthy stockholders that he's happy to use the guns to make sure workers send the fruits of their labor to the capitalist. But the suffering of the workers is getting so extreme that they are about to storm the castle and bring the whole system down, which means the non working capitalist that takes all the money and does none of the work could see himself out in the cold, having to work like an ordinary person for money rather than taking it based on state violence. So they use the same threat of violence to throw the poor a bone. The welfare state. You have to pay your taxes. You have to participate in Obama Care. If you don't like the threat or use of violence and want no compulsion, fine, but give it up for property rights as well. Welcome to anarchism.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-44178630981465756802013-10-30T08:19:29.272-04:002013-10-30T08:19:29.272-04:00Learned - absolutely. I like learning, but I also...Learned - absolutely. I like learning, but I also like choice and freedom. I choose to eat poorly, drink heavily and play very hard - I realize and accept that lifestyle will cost me more financially. Not to be crude - why do you want people to live until their 100 - I know I don't. I am lucky to have 3 grandparents on this earth - all in their 80's, but watching their lack of a quality of life is scary. All they are doing at this point is living - other people get their groceries, 2 wear diapers and they seem to be at the hospital or doctors more than they are at home. <br /><br />I don't deny and never will profiteering plays a role in cost, but it also plays a role in employment, development and growth as well.<br /><br />You haven't answered my question - why the gun Jon? Why ideas so good that they need Gov't to force 50% plus of the population who does not believe in it to participate? Saying that the EU system is half the cost (for now) as a result of the force of Gov't dictating medical costs is not a fair comparison. Gov't could take over the car industry and sell cars for half the price too.<br /><br />Why the gun sir?<br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-68237562408147154242013-10-30T05:54:17.514-04:002013-10-30T05:54:17.514-04:00Chad, very briefly because I think we've prett...Chad, very briefly because I think we've pretty much run course here, but don't you think any assessment of health care needs to consider life expectancy? And by the way WHO uses "Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy". Meaning they're addressing healthy years. I think that means if you are in a wheelchair because your health care system is too crappy to stop polio, this is a factor. In the US we have for profit health care and as I said our system is being gamed by the insurance industry to dump costs associated with being elderly on the taxpayer and reaping profits on the young and healthy. What this means is there's not a lot of incentive to take as many preventative measures. Americans can live long and sick, and that's a profitable condition. Disability adjustment means a country that is more preventative and keeps you healthy longer is overall a benefit.<br /><br />As I said I do agree that violent death and car accidents should be considered. But also remember that there is some interplay there. I just got back from London and everyone there walks. I must say most people there seem pretty fit. If I saw someone fat I assumed they were American. The destruction of our public transit system, not something that happened arbitrarily but by design to benefit the profits of the automotive industry, plays a role in the overall health system we reside in. We sit in traffic all day driving on roads that aren't all that bike friendly (often, there are exceptions of course but overall not as good as EU). This is a factor disassociated from the skill of doctors. But maybe we have good doctors because we require so many surgeries because of our overall system, and so naturally overseas people might come here because our doctors are the best. Because overall we are sick and rich, so doctors get lots of practice.<br /><br />And isn't accessibility a factor? If you have the best stuff in the world, and you have 100 citizens that will live to be 120 and the rest get by in a sickly condition, well that's not necessarily great.<br /><br />Your critiques complain that the WHO study is based on subjective factors. Complaining about the subjective nature of the assessments is a lot like complaining about Obama Care. Do you have an alternative?<br /><br />I think your rush to judgment based on the writings of people paid to advance the profit interest of the insurance industry is pretty typical of you. Dismiss pages and pages of detailed study of 191 countries because the war cheer leading Hoover Institute says it's bad over the course of a few paragraphs. I can admit these things are complicated and I'm doing the best I can. No study like this can be perfect. But I fall back on the polls of Americans and residents of other countries who likewise express views that coincide with WHO findings. Overall people in the US don't like their health care system. And for people that don't like deficits, it's pretty amazing that they want to continue doing the same things we've been doing.<br /><br />But then it's not surprising because a whole industry derives profits here and they pay Hoover and other right wing think tanks to spin on their behalf, and naturally some will go along. We have a whole industry that extracts tons of money as a middle man, adding almost nothing of value but taking an enormous chunk. Other systems that don't share that kind of a burden obviously are going to get a boost from that. Remember, we're the richest country in the world. We should be far and away better in terms of life expectancy, not squeaking by if we adjust for car accidents. Even if EU countries have a life expectancy very close to us, we have to ask how they do it for half the price. Or Cuba. We may have a year in life expectancy on them. They do it for a tenth the cost and while subject to a punishing embargo that prevents them from getting all the supplies they would otherwise need. You can't tell me there's nothing to be learned from that.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-71516632440335894342013-10-29T21:37:03.426-04:002013-10-29T21:37:03.426-04:00Chad,
Take the hint, you're off topic and trol...Chad,<br />Take the hint, you're off topic and trolling<br />Perhaps you need read this <br />http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362303/against-despair-ramesh-ponnuru-rich-lowry/page/0/4Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-70171325318120944782013-10-29T16:49:27.457-04:002013-10-29T16:49:27.457-04:00While you ponder how to,answer my question - my co...While you ponder how to,answer my question - my company just Recieved it's threat to fines and fees because of Obama Care. The first of many threats to come - if our company does not have every employee sign a piece of paper stating that we informed them about Obama Care we are subject to a $100 fine per person per day.<br /><br />The gun.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-23550003184065651612013-10-29T07:39:09.621-04:002013-10-29T07:39:09.621-04:00JC - I will be waiting for your reply as I am very...JC - I will be waiting for your reply as I am very interested in how you intend on spinning the hard data (life expectancy #1 in the US when excluding murders and car deaths). <br /><br />Then - please outline how the final legs of the stool that make up the WHO scores have anything to do with actual medicine and quality thereof. When you pull back the sheets - look at how the rating system was designed sir - it is difficult to ignore or to deny that the intent was to promote socialized medicine and further more to make sure the US scored down the list. The study of actual quality of medicine and care was not the design of the report.<br /><br />In regards to your initial post - I too thought it ran its course. I thought I did a yomans job showing/arguing that socialized medicine costs have risen significantly and in many cases more than the % here in America and they are not done. More over I thought I did a good job outlining the quality of medicine is not better (wait times double) and life expectancy is less that in the US. What I find fascinating when talking about healthcare quality is that Americans are very unhealthy people - we play hard - I would argue we play harder than just about anyone with food, drink and smoke - recreation and yet the life expectancy here is still #1 when removing murders and car crash deaths. <br /><br />What you and no one can fully understand yet is the impact that an unnatural force - especially Gov't will have over time. Just today Jon we read now that 1 million US Citizens will not be able to keep their current insurance and the numbers will continue to rise.<br /><br />Jon and now Linda and God knows Ex will chime in - I have a question I would like you all to answer.<br /><br />If your ideas or this idea (Obama Care/socialized medicine) is so wonderful for all then why does it require an unnatural force like Gov't to work? This idea of affordable healthcare should be ale to stand on its own two feet if it is a sound and fair idea shouldn't it? These exchanges can be created without any Gov't assistance - the US is made up of about 50% who think as you do so why not find insurance agencies, doctors to subscribe and then sign up your membership and pay for those members using the low cost doctors agreeing to the plans? Why do you need the gun - the power of imprisonment and the Gov't if this idea is so wonderful?<br /><br />Hell Jon - if it's done right maybe a guy like me may choose to buy into the plan. <br /><br />Why the gun?Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-9540111415785909392013-10-27T21:53:18.987-04:002013-10-27T21:53:18.987-04:00Jon,
Sorry I'll sand in the naughty corner …. ...Jon,<br />Sorry I'll sand in the naughty corner …. :-( .........back now. ;-)<br />I thought the original argument had run its course. <br /><br />Let me say clearly on topic, that the congressman's response is consequential flaw of party (schism's thereof) government.<br /><br />The congresspersons FEAr they have to parrot Party or schism's policies rather than hang themselves out to the party/schism's ire by representing the real majority of their constituents opinions on the topic.<br />IN FACT THE PARTIES/SCHISMS have usurped the public's power over the representatives by being allowed to dictate (limit) the scope of ballots i.e. who can stand and um ideology read "policy"(sic) i.e. on what.<br />Business/rich determine these ideologies via the check book <br /> <br />The technique the representative is using is as old as politics it's called “ if you don't like the question asked ...answer the question you wished they'd asked” <br />The whole form letter response is based on the flawed, party government fallacy of 'mandate' to enshrine a political ideology.<br /><br />In logic they the party/ schism can't claim a mandate on specific issues simply because the reality is that people vote for parties for different reasons i.e. some for perceived financial, religious, lifestyle benefits etc. But I wonder how many Republicans voted specifically for the threatened shut down of the USA, the default on debt payments etc. My guess is not many, just the schism minority. Such actions would clearly adversely effect them. My experience has shown me that very few people are prepared to be martyrs for some ill considered bizarre principal. <br /><br />The reality is that the Government's deficit is despite the huge numbers is ACTUALLY 3% of GDP (stated last night) and falling, light years from national Bankruptcy or a real crisis.<br />The problem is as I've said before the utter Macro Economic ignorance of the likes of the TP (sic) /schism.<br />They are emotionally lead by vested interests to panic. <br />Yes the more the Sovereign l debt the more tax is required to pay it down.<br />BUT the real national problem is PRIVATE DEBT and it's impact on the ability of banks to borrow money to fund mortgages, credit cards, consumer credit, cars, petrol, coal, exotic foods etc. <br /><br />The clear reality is that the rich/ businesses don't want to pay taxes BUT they don't want to cut their consumer spending that would reduce the cost of overseas loans etc. <br />NB even this thumb nail is crude it's really way more complex.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-25066308713181840902013-10-27T20:49:19.286-04:002013-10-27T20:49:19.286-04:00Chad,
Yet again you refuse to process more than on...Chad,<br />Yet again you refuse to process more than one point at a time.<br /><br />I didn't say the report was wrong I merely pointed to the factors that need to be considered when reading such essays.<br /><br />BTW- I DID say that I was NOT TECHNICALLY competent to argue against his technical and political arguments and would not do so. Ergo I'm not in the position to confirm or refute the technical part of his essay. <br />Conversely you on the other hand feel you are. I challenge that!<br /><br />I DID point out the obvious wider potential flaws i.e. plausible alternative perspective.<br /><br />I DID point out that it was an interesting piece worthy of noting <br /><br />Again you still don't understand the way academic type papers work!<br />It is NEVER a case of absolutes (right or wrong.) That is the uneducated public's misconception. They tend to work on consensus and balance of PROBABILITIES.<br /><br />I also CLEARLY said that my choice for the Aust system was mine as an individual. I also said I was NOT speaking on behalf of anyone else.<br /><br />Tell me how I'm making my self the greatest horse's ass of four continents? By admitting that I don't have an absolute answer? By admitting that I'm not competent to make a definitive conclusion on a single article? By stating my non prescriptive opinion? By pointing out that win loose or draw on this academic article that to the 68million (he mentioned) whether America is Number one or number 32 is a moot point. Especially when you consider those wishing to deny is by far a lessor minority than those being denied. <br />Really Chad, your absolutism is making you appear more than a little dogmatic even messianic. <br />To avoid this read my posts as a complete logical interwoven argument rather that a gain saying mish mash of unrelated single points.<br />Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-66263174108073604452013-10-27T06:58:51.374-04:002013-10-27T06:58:51.374-04:00Thanks Linda. I agree we're off the rails her...Thanks Linda. I agree we're off the rails here. I too would like to see someone rebut what I said in my original post, how every argument our Congressman made actually reflects worse on the system he defends compared to Obama Care, so really it's an argument in favor of Obama Care. The contrast to the prior system is the key, not whether Europe has deficits, missed budgets, or whatever else.<br /><br />I also don't want to see things like"you can't fix stupid". That's adding nothing of value. People that I think are not fixable I simply don't reply to. Otherwise I'm fixing the unfixable, and that would be just as stupid, right?<br /><br />It's a balance here. I like the passionate back and forth, sometimes even when it is off topic, so I prefer letting discussions go freely without restraint, but I'd love to see more people focus on one topic at a time, including myself.<br /><br />Chad, both of your links I've covered before, if I'm recognizing them right, but due to a slight time crunch I'll perhaps have to get back to you.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-16281136568260303622013-10-27T05:46:06.917-04:002013-10-27T05:46:06.917-04:00Ex - you just managed to look like the biggest hor...Ex - you just managed to look like the biggest horses ass in 3 counties -.congrats.<br /><br />Even faced with solid factual data as to the reasons why the WHO report is skewed at best your still unable to admit your wrong or should I say someone else is right. You even attempted to defend the undefendable somehow?<br /><br />My Grandfather always told me that you can't fix stupid and now I know exactly what he means.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-43343459426738987172013-10-26T21:51:50.564-04:002013-10-26T21:51:50.564-04:00Jon,
I appreciated your original post about the fo...Jon,<br />I appreciated your original post about the form letter we both received from our rep, Kerry Bentivolio. I was very much taken aback at how blatantly backwards Mr. Bentivolio is, and I was hoping to learn more about him through comments that may be posted in response. As of yet, I don't find the comments very relevant to your post. Maybe that is just my perception given my initial interest. <br /><br />I get notices that comments are made, but in reading them I find your blog has been rather hijacked to be used as a tea party soap box with more outlandish and unverified claims, and a lot of hyperbolic personal opinion. <br /><br />I assume one purpose of the blog is to give others the opportunity to "Prove You Wrong" on something you post; however, there never is any proof and topics of responses seem to go wildly off the rail.<br /><br />I was going to opt to have notifications stopped, but then I realized the writer's name is in the email so I can save myself the time of following the link every time I get a notice. I will carefully look for the names of worthwhile writers and ignore the name associated with boorish rhetoric.<br /><br />I look forward to hearing if you receive a response from our rep, Kerry Bentivolio, explaining his cherry picking of facts from the very article he quotes partial data. On that, no one can "Prove You Wrong". Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02114719716821079972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-27952546177059567402013-10-26T21:21:17.739-04:002013-10-26T21:21:17.739-04:00Chad
re the creators comment .
This is a 3rd rate...Chad <br />re the creators comment .<br />This is a 3rd rate opinion piece that offers only a truncated hash up of the Commentary one. It says nothing , proves nothing it is a simply a lot of what if's and unproven assertions.<br /><br />The Commentary piece is far better in fact very interesting argument. But the devil is in the detail. <br />Like it or not all Transport Accident are INSTANTLY fatal. Ergo there are elements of the health system involved that may contribute to the deaths.<br />Many such cases are time and expertise critical.<br /> e.g. hang around an ER on a Friday and or Saturday nights and look how many eventually transport/gun shot fatalities may also have other health system failures contributions in the deaths involved. A delay here or there the wrong or too conservative decision or looking/waiting for the senior to make the correct action, too many cases at once etc. It's more common than you would imagine.<br />One needs far more information. Then you can take into consideration that a victim in a small country hospital may have survived if there was timely specialists available. It isn't simply cut and dried.<br /><br />Also the same error factor would be also evident in other countries too.<br />To me that's a the professor's view doesn't take that into account and as such is a dubious objection.<br /><br />As for the bias towards the 40 million + the 28 million under insured. the simple math tells me that 68million is a sizeable % of the US 300+ million population. <br />I might point out that that number represents WAY, WAY more of the American Population than the Tea Party(sic) (all versions there of) of does. <br />Especially given that in your previous assertion the tea party (sic) is a different side than the Republicans. <br /><br />The rest of the piece is more political than objective. <br /><br />One thing I know about Conservatives is that they are by definition nationalistic in their sensitivities i.e. they find it nearly impossible to accept that their country and therefore it's systems aren't the best in the world. Which in logic is emotional bias rather than objective.<br />Take for example you hyperbolic comment about Frenchies ( derogatory term) living under the US system would choose that over their own country's system. There are too many variable to even to make sense.<br />I ( with a stated lack of nationalistic pride etc) have lived under 4 different health schemes and MUCH prefer the Australian one. <br />Not withstanding that is one families Opinion not an absolute. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-86332772455155255512013-10-26T20:18:21.693-04:002013-10-26T20:18:21.693-04:00Chad
["If you removed murders and car crash d...Chad<br />["If you removed murders and car crash deaths - which have nothing to do with medical care the USA would have the HIGHEST life expectancy in the world Jon and Ex. That is a fact and you can look it up."]<br />Really? um er Where? <br /><br />["What other facts on points do you want Ex?"]<br />What FACTS? are you putting forward in your comment? There are none, the whole post is opinion assertion and vague questions on methodology ... like you're qualified (have sufficient knowledge)to out guess WHO. show us precisely where they erred <br />I suggest you actually read the WHO report in full rather than 3rd hand selectivity.<br />Their methodology is available and life expectancy isn't the only criterium. <br />You're using the same smoke and mirror TECHNIQUES of Big Tobacco.<br /><br />In a nut shell it is YOU who is arguing against the widely accepted orthodoxy it is therefore up to YOU to prove your Absolutist (and dogmatic) assertions. Not the other way round. <br />NB I'm not asserting anything merely examining your (counter?) fact lite, assertion heavy, opinion.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-89738218692320900382013-10-26T08:17:12.598-04:002013-10-26T08:17:12.598-04:00http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-wors...http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-worst-study-ever/<br /><br />Another good read and it's strikes me odd that your defending something that is so skewed from the truth. You see sir - now that you see the factual flaws, that peer review groups and folks who dig past layer one discount and essentially discard this report where is your rock now?<br /><br />I have a simple and easy solution. Take 100 Frenchy's and bring them over to the US - have them spend a year using our healthcare and lets see which one they would prefer? Some of these polls asking if they are happy with their healthcare? How the hell do they know if they do or not - to what do they have to compare that to?Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-38074850313463432042013-10-26T08:11:01.414-04:002013-10-26T08:11:01.414-04:00http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/why-t...http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/why-the-u-s-ranks-low-on-who-s-health-care-study.html<br /><br />Sums it up well and it is all factual. He gives examples of what is added along with why they add it - the report was designed and rigged to make sure the US finished low. Your a smart guy - you have to that this is true and that report says absolutely nothing about the quality of health care or medicine.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.com