I caught an interesting article that I thought was worth sharing in relation to the oil crisis going on. It's bashes Obama a bit, but what is more interesting is the attack on EPA regulations and the stifling of genetic research that could have been used to assist in the clean up of the spill. Of course it would be better that the spill never happen, but stuff happens. Read the Article.
From the start of the article: "I dislike President Obama's style and substance. A whiner and left-wing ideologue, he is remarkably slow-witted when out of range of speechwriters and teleprompters. I'll say one thing for him, though: He brings a sense of irony to government."
With a ridiculous start like that, I'm not bothering with anything else he has to say. It's telling when the first words on paper are an insult of that caliber.
Geoff said about 19 hours later
lol too bad, you missed some good stuff I think. What can we commend Obama on lately anyway?
GJ said about 21 hours later
Is this a thread to talk about the oil spill and response to it, or are you looking to debate Obama's performance to date across any and all areas?
GJ said about 21 hours later
OK, I went back and read the rest of the article. This guy is a crank who thinks he understands genetics and bio-engineering. Hint: he doesn't.
Geoff said about 23 hours later
his credentials seem fairly legit...what's your angle, the EPA isn't stifling genetic research? I thought the government has done a pretty good job at holding science back, no?
And for the topic of discussion, we can attack or defend Obama if we like. Has he done enough with this disaster? Should he be doing more, has he pressured BP enough to clean up this mess? Could this be Obama's Katrina?
GJ said about 24 hours later
When the web speeds up a bit, I'll have to take a look. I didn't catch his credentials, but regardless of them he comes across like a "Go genetic research, damn the negligible consequences" guy.
.
The idea of introducing a new animal / plant / bacteria into an environment to fix a problem is not a new one. The law of unintended consequences is also not new, but not understood well. Let's just say that there are few if any of these implementations that have ever turned out as planned, thanks to that aforementioned law. The idea that we have some magic bullet to solve the oil problem and the government is suppressing it is a fairly stock and naive line of reasoning.
To understand the law of unintended consequences, start here. Also give Freakanomics a read.
Geoff said about 24 hours later
Well I believe he said they were starting with a fairly neutral organism to begin with and adjusting characteristics to enhance it's "oil eating" ability. I'm not quite sure it has the same risks that killer bees had, whom managed to break free anyway and we're still alive and kicking.
Not to say there aren't risks with genetically engineering organisms, but since these organisms have been developed over 25 years ago in some form or another, I'd think they'd have sufficient testing done to employ the use of them by now.
Abby said 1 day later
if I can jump in.... basically every biology teacher in BH would shoot whoever introduced brand-new organisms to an ocean ecosystem that's already in trouble. :) even the most harmless-seeming creature can completely destroy its surroundings.
(I'm only here because my Bio regents is tomorrow. hah.)
Steve said 1 day later
Well said Abby. Geoff, you might not understand how serious a problem could be caused by introducing a new organism to an environment. Hot topic this year out here is Asian Carp - and keeping them out of the Great Lakes. A couple years ago it was the emerald ash borer - I have one of the few surviving Ash trees in southern Michigan in my yard. Over 90% of the ash trees in Michigan are dead from the emerald ash borer. There are several examples of new organisms totally changing an ecosystem.
Killer bees is not an issue in NY (yet), but it certainly is down south (southern US that is).
GJ said 1 day later
Killer bees actual issue isn't that they are prone to attacking humans. It's their decimation of the honey industry that is the far greater problem, since African bees tend to displace European ones, and they produce far less honey. One more application of the law of unintended consequences. :)
Now, I did hear that BP bought a bunch of machines from a company funded by Kevin Costner that supposedly clean up oil. I was expecting to see some nonsense-related gimmick, but they're actually using giant centrifuges. That's an interesting idea, and it should work...but I bet it's not good for the micro organisms in the water....if any are still alive in that contaminated water to begin with! So, for a rare change, my skeptical view got a pleasant refutation!
Geoff said 1 day later
We're talking about any oil spill here. Whatever ecosystem that existed there, especially this spill, is nothing like it used to be. I'd talk more about this, but there is a 2 year old who needs to go to bed.
GJ said 1 day later
Ok, Dr. Moreau. Whatever you say.
Geoff said 1 day later
To me, it seems absurd to discount genetically engineered organisms entirely because of unintended consequences of a micro organism being introduced to an ecosystem. First, what is this organism...perhaps it already exists in some form in the habitat. I can tell you the Oil that ended up there didn't exist prior, and I'm sure that damage done already probably outweighs the risk of this micro organism...unless you think they'll self replicate endlessly until they consume the earth like nanobots plan to in the near future. Perhaps they will, I don't know enough about this oil eating organism.
Just seems odd to me that we humans do more "damage" to the worlds ecosystem by infrastructure, hunting, industrial accidents, war, overpopulation on a daily basis, but then when some bring up the idea of a genetically enhanced organism to help combat these problems, we tell them their crazy.
Personally, I think this is hypocritical. While I don't agree it is smart to reckless introduce new species to an ecosystem, I do believe this is one option to consider for oil spills. It may not be the best option, or maybe it isn't a viable option at all, but it should be considered based on the risks of introducing a new organism to destroyed ecosystem. That is, of course, unless you think the oil is a welcome addition to the ecosystem.
If you think any kind of interruption in an ecosystem that has unintended consequences should be avoided in any way shape or form. I advise you to stay in bed. You may step on an ant or run over a squirrel in your car. Could have dire, unintended consequences on the ecosystem.
Lets be real, we interrupt the ecosystem all the time. The possibility that genetic engineering could actually assist in oil spill cleanups, or lake cleanups, or pesticides, or what have you, may actually benefit us. It should be an option to at least consider.
I mean, 98% of what you eat in the US is non-native crops and livestock. You can't tell me ALL introduced species are bad.
Marc said 1 day later
I don't think discounting the introduction of these organisms right out the door is a good idea. We all know introducing a new organism can cause problems, but as Geoff said, the oil is already causing problems and we know what that means for the ecosystem.
It seems like there's some basic tests that should be run with these organisms, and I'd actually love to see more info about the tests they've run. What is the sole purpose of this organisms, do they ONLY eat up oil? What happens when there isn't oil, do they simply die off or do they find other forms of nutrients by jumping into the food chain. Similarly, for the current organisms (if there are any left), what would they think of their new neighbors. Would they eat them up? Maybe not with other food in the area, but as food becomes scarce, what happens if they do start eating them? How does that affect their bodies and the dependents that eat them?
It certainly requires a lot of testing, but if there's already been some fairly extensive testing and things look pretty promising, is there a way we can safely try it on smaller, controlled areas? There's always a risk of not being able to control it, but as long as people can generally agree this won't be as disastrous as the oil spill, it might be worth a shot.
Geoff said 1 day later
Yup, even if it is not a viable solution, the pursuit of genetic engineering is something we need to continue.
I just thought it was an interesting article on how that could be a possible solution to cleaning up oil spills. If we could find an organic approach vs burning it, that would be good to know. More research would need to be done, but it gets you thinking, which is always a good thing in most cases.
GJ said 1 day later
Geoff, you should also read up on the either/or logical fallacy. You employ it a lot--it kills your argument line.
What organism is it? It almost doesn't matter. That's the whole point of unintended consequences. You bring in organism A, who, say, already exists in this biosphere prior to the oil spill. It's been engineered to eat oil. You've made a pretty radical change to it's life cycle. It eats something different--what does it poop? That may even be somewhat safe (that's probably the point of the organism), but we now have a number of unknowns:
What happens to what it used to eat? What takes it's place, or does anything? If nothing, what keeps its previous meal in check? What depends on this organism? What impact will its changed chemistry have on predators? On scavengers? How about on the next level of predators and scavengers? What happens once there isn't enough oil left? Sure, many will die off, but some will likely mutate and find themselves able to eat something new. Wonder what that'll be? How successful will they be, and again, what impact will that have on the environment?
Now for the real facts. There are various strains of bacteria that eat oil, and have been used to clean up previous spills. They are not outlawed by the EPA, contrary to what Geoff's linked article claims. Why aren't they being used? It could be simply that these bacteria have been used for surface oil spills, and would not be effective to resolve the plume issues. Also likely--due to the different scenario, more testing must be done.
I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been used yet. There's hints that some calls were made to the companies that make this product, but no followup occurred so far. Hard to say if there any truth to that, but I haven't seen any evidence to date that this kind of bacterial approach has been used.
In regards to not burning it--why the heck wouldn't you burn it? Isn't that what we'd be doing with the oil eventually? It seems funny that people have a problem with this approach--but again, that only addresses the oil on the surface. I've heard really no good solutions at all for removing the underwater oil plumes.
Worse, the leak has yet to be plugged. Haven't seen any good ideas for addressing that problem either.
Sarah's not the only GOP right winger guilty of this in the past few years. A bunch of them would like nothing better than to turn the USA into some sort of Christian theocracy, and claim that's precisely what the founding fathers had in mind.
Spend a few minutes trolling around the web, and you'll find that many of the core architects of the Constitution and early goverment efforts were anything but theocrats:
'Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.'
-- James Madison, 1774
'How has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?'
-- John Adams, 1816
'Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth... I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.'
-- Thomas Jefferson (whose original words in the Declaration of Independence read 'All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable,' which Congress later changed to include a reference to a creator).
'Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.'
--George Washington, 1792
'I wish [Christianity] were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works, not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing, or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.'
-- Benjamin Franklin
'Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.'
--Thomas Paine
It would seem that perhaps they ought to read up more on why we have a separation of church and state in this grand democracy experiment we have in this country. I think they'll find Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) will do just fine on its own without getting entwined with the government. At the end of the day, you simply cannot legislate belief, ya know?
OK, ok, no more political posts for a week or two. :) I'll go find some sciency things to post about!
Yup, no more posts, but maybe a comment or two. Check out the Emergency Prayer Response Team. Good thing they were on the scene--their town was missed by the tornado-spawning storm cells, but five people in Wakita OK apparently weren't God-fearing enough...or something. You fill in the blanks.
Steve said about 9 hours later
How do you know Ben Franklin's post was about [Christianity]?
How do we know any of these quotes are real?
GJ said about 11 hours later
Ok, fine, I'll go get you the bibliography. That's something you won't see Ms. Palin (or Mr. Beck) ever do. :)
GJ said about 11 hours later
See how long this took me using google (check out how long this was from the comment above)
Shall I continue? Or do you insist I'm making this up?
GJ said 1 day later
Also, I'm not saying these folks were out and out atheists or agnostics. A few were, but for the most part, they were very wary of seeing politics and religion mix, since that's precisely what they saw as the problem with England's monarchy at the time. Religious oppression was the order of the day in England, and was also a problem here in the original colonies. To be sure, it wasn't the only problem we had (we weren't big on the taxes used to fund Mother England's foreign wars and home coffers), but it was big enough that they were determined to keep religion out of the charter documents of the USA.
Over the years, the religious folks have chipped away at this--adding "Creator" to the Declaration, adding "In God We Trust" to the money...the list goes on and on. They continually believe that this government was generated to be favorable to Christians.
The big question is why. Why? It's a battle of morality. Just like the Islamic theocracies, American Christians want their religions beliefs legislated. Abortion? Wrong, God says so. Gay marriage? Wrong, God says so. Stem cell research? Wrong, God says so. Teaching evolution? Wrong, God says so. Pretty soon, most of the rules get tied back to what God wants. God wants the aliens out of Arizona. God wants this, God wants that. God according to the Christians, of course.
The God according to the Muslims has other priorities...equally bogus, but still different. Lots of rules about what women can't do, for instance. Rules about interest on loans. Rules about who can be educated and to what level. All good stuff.
The problem is, all these rules are based on religious beliefs--or at least, justified by them. This is the problem with any form of intrusion of religion into government--it allows for abuse, simply because things can be attributed to God's wishes--which, any astute observer will tell you is simply a human interpretation of what they think God is saying. It tends to vary quite a bit. Instead, rules should be based solely on their merits. That's fine if God wants or doesn't want something, but justify it in terms of the human experience. What a concept, you know?
That's what the founders were trying to do. It's a shame that most people don't see the beauty in this, and instead wish to replace it with something that panders well to their interests but is subject to far more misuse and abuse.
GJ said 4 days later
Another comment that could have been a post, but I'm lazy right now. Check out this asshole Texas lawmaker. Nice move, dude. No way scientists can use this money to spread their propaganda about things like global warming now! They certainly wouldn't use it for anything valuable, now would they?
Geoff said 5 days later
Good read on a variety of levels in that link. Scary to see where our country is heading. Glad my daughter is learning Chinese! We may have to move there eventually to get a halfway decent education at this rate!
;)
Yeah, I know, you're like...Rachel Maddow?? Isn't she like the uber-liberal? Why, yes, she is. :) But I think you'll find that on this story, she's got the goods on Fox News and especially Mr. James O'Keefe III.
Eric said 2 days later
That's the best she can come up with? They showed (gasp!) edited video on Fox News! The horror! You mean he didn't dress up as a 70's pimp? No way! No wonder he was able to trick all these poor folks at ACORN, those guardians of all that is good and rightous in our society! Maybe he was dressed in a shirt and tie because he didn't want to look like a 70's pimp, since he would have been thrown out on the street immediately! That charlatan! And that worker from California that offered to get young girls over the border from Tiajuana. He was just trying to get more information out of them for the police! Great! Let's take a look at the police investigation! (chirp, chirp)
Okay then. At least we can't punch holes in the investigation from Jerry Brown. Oh wait, he's the liberal Democrat that's running in the 2010 election for Governor of California. Maybe he has an angle? Hmmm....
Oh and did you see her comments on the "Climategate" scandal? The British House of Commons did a "complete" investigation on all those pesky emails that were stolen. "Nobody lied," is what she said. So the global warming supporters in the House of Commons investigated the global warming scientists and found nothing irregular. Well I'm sure glad that's settled!
Put down that Kool-aid and crack open a Bud. Sure it tastes like crap, but it helps me put all this garbage into perspective.
I love our little talks!
GJ said 2 days later
Wow, dude, you are simply...amazing. I'm almost not sure where to start.
GJ said 2 days later
1) It was claimed that O'Keefe and his companion made it clear what they were after, emphasized by their dress and mannerisms. Truth: in talking to the female ACORN employee, they just happen to insert the word prostitute into the conversation, and the ACORN employee turns to O'Keefe's companion and gives her the heartfelt message that she'll succeed. Fox News and O'Keefe portrayed this instead as the ACORN employee encouraging her to find housing to run their prostitution ring from. (source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/09/11/acorn-employees-fired-face-criminal-charges/ )
2) It was claimed that the male employee in California offered to facilitate the smuggling of thirteen young girls into the country. What did Fox claim? See that link above again. What happened? O'Keefe was pushing for exactly that, and the employee pretty much made him explicitly state what he wanted. Once established, he collected enough information he thought was needed to report to the police--and yes, we could probably track those phone calls down to confirm this. The fact that Maddow's report mentioned specific names of officers likely means this is true--mentioning names if false invites a lawsuit from the named party. NBC has deep pockets, so yeah, they'd go after that in a second.
So, a criminal probe? You kind of need a crime, don't you? What O'Keefe did isn't illegal, neither is what the ACORN folks did. However, if I was the fired ACORN folks, I'd sue the pants off him and Fox News. Meanwhile, what has O'Keefe been up to? Oh yeah, that's right, he got busted for trying to tap Senator Landrieu's phones back in January. Meanwhile, ACORN gets to go out of business. Mission accomplished, right?
ACORN's biggest sin: they helped register poor voters...who vote Dem over GOP pretty much universally. If only there was some group of disenfranchised rich folk who they could help register...they'd probably balance it out and vote GOP. But of course, the GOP likes to win elections, so ACORN was eeeeeevil.
Now, you may consider all this just crap, and very silly...but a lot of people actually suck this stuff right up and believe it. They then base their votes on outright falsehoods...not differences of opinion, but total falsehoods.
Compare this to, say, the whole climate change debate. Climategate aside for the moment, this is a topic that is still very much debated in the science world, but not quite the way it's debated in the media and politics circles. Should we stick our heads in the sand and suppress studies of it (Bush)? Nope. Should we just jump right in a legislate carbon taxes / trading /whatever they want to call it (Obama)? Nope. Instead, let's try to figure out what's going on here. Obama's making ground there too, thankfully--launching that satellite (DSCOVR) at long last hopefully next year.
Eric said 5 days later
At least we can agree on one thing - I AM SIMPLY AMAZING!!!
Geoff said 5 days later
lol
GJ said 5 days later
Wait, you mean we can't agree that Bud tastes like...oh, wait, you said crap. I think it tastes like piss. Dammit, we couldn't be farther apart on the most important issue in the world!
Meanwhile, all this chit-chat is leaving me thirsty. I'm gonna go grab me a Stella.
Frank Rich is certainly a NYT columnist of the left leaning order, but his recent column about the source of the Tea Party anger seems to be right on the money, in my opinion. What do you all think?
I couldn't disagree more. Here are some reasons why:
"the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts." I can believe anyone thinks this is a good thing. How is Massachusetts doing with their universal health care? They are broke and asking for a federal bailout. Do they still think it can work? Sure they do! And they are fooling themselves. I'm still talking about Massachusetts here; I know the Fed has all their ducks in a row and won't let this happen.
"it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers." The CBO came out last week and estimated that by 2019, there would still be about 19 million people that are uninsured. Some just won't join the program, and some still won't be able to afford it; according to the CBO.
"this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it," Are you kidding me? Shouldn't a middle of the road bill be acceptable to most of Congress, not just most of the majority party in Congress?
"To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress" That is NOT correct. They were not "similar majorities." It is true the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress when Medicare and the Civil Rights Act were passed. The difference was that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats voted for those pieces of legislation. In fact, percentage-wise, more Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans! The "overheated reaction" was mostly a north vs. south sentiment, as you can imagine.
The last four paragraphs basically state that the whole movement is racist. Gee, everyone in the Tea Party movement is white. Hmm...it must be racist then. Heck, everyone who plays hockey is white. Those damn stick-toting racists! Even the puck is black!
Maybe there are some extremists in the Tea Party. I wonder if there are any extremists on the left? There's always going to be loons out there that resort to violence, no matter what their political views are. The point is that the vast majority of those Americans who joined the Tea Parties are good people that just have a different opinion. Just like the majority of the super left (you know, the communists, the socialists) are also good people that just have different opinion (albiet wildly misguided) of how the government should function.
I really enjoyed the article though. Even though the NY Times readership is down to about 36 people, I think it's important to understand where everyone is coming from.
GJ said about 8 hours later
Everyone who plays hockey is white? Grant Fuhr would like a word with you, once Jarome Inginlia finishes showing you how black his fists are. :)
Do tell me you realize that the national plan and the Massachusetts plan are different. Do you know how they differ, or why the Dems believe the changes they made address those shortcomings?
>> "it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers." The CBO came out last week and estimated that by 2019, there would still be about 19 million people that are uninsured. Some just won't join the program, and some still won't be able to afford it; according to the CBO.
Please explain how your statement relates to the first one. Those are two different numbers--the number of people who will be added compared to the number who won't be. It's a known fact that this plan will not guarantee universal coverage. I think they're shooting for 97%, if I remember correctly.
>> "this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it," Are you kidding me? Shouldn't a middle of the road bill be acceptable to most of Congress, not just most of the majority party in Congress?
Oh, is that how democracy works? I was thinking it was more like this: whoever has the votes, makes the rules. The GOP had the votes in Bush's early years, and that didn't stop them from putting in all kinds of stuff that drove Dems wild. By a "middle-of-the-road" bill, I believe he means that it was formed based on the alternative plan the GOP created during the Clinton years, later put in place by Romney in Massachusetts, and is now being revised (to deal with cost control, but to continue to keep the high penetration of coverage in the general population). Unlike the mid-90s, I didn't really see a Republican plan presented this year, but I did see them spent a lot of time throwing out the socialism word in an vain and ultimately inept attempt to sway public opinion in their favor.
You are correct about the Civil Rights Act voting--Frank totally screwed up that item. Point given. :)
I would agree that both sides have had the loons and extremists. I wouldn't put communists / socialists in that bucket, however. Don't be drinking that kool-aid. The nuts on the left are the wacky environment / animal rights yahoos--they correspond well to the god-militias and anti-abortion wackaloons on the right. I put commies and socialists in the same group as the neocons--they're considerably further down the scale of crazy.
Anyhoo--I'm curious to see if the Tea Party can maintain this head of steam until the elections, and then see what impact they can have. I'm betting it's not going to be anywhere near what the GOP is hoping for, however.
Geoff said about 8 hours later
I thoroughly enjoyed the article and Eric's response. The good news for us is this: In 2014 when the health industry no longer can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, we are going to drop health care for our employees, pay the fine (which would be about $750 for us, a whole lot cheaper than the $2500/month), and then when trouble arises, we'll sign right back up to take care of whatever problems we have to deal with. Hey, you got my vote!
I can't say I'm really surprised at any of this. Seems like the perfect time to pass costly legislation. At least we can say Obama did something, right?
It's not his fault. We basically just need to throw out everyone in congress pretty much, get rid of this obnoxious party system which inherently can't get anything done, and somehow figure out how to get people in this country motivated to action.
Vote Ron Paul!
Eric said about 9 hours later
My point about all hockey players being white was a dig at his comment. I know they are not all white; neither are all the tea partiers all white (although the vast majority are, just like in hockey!)
Yes, I know the the plans are different, but not as different as you might think. There is a pool of private insurance you can choose from. If you are 300% or less above the poverty level, you receive subsidies to buy from the pool. At some level of poverty you get full Medicaid. There is a mandate with a tax penalty if you don't purchase. Sounds kind of like the Fed program if you ask me. Anyway, HE'S the one that said that Massachusetts was the model, not me.
By the way, Mitt Romney vetoed eight sections of the Mass. Health Care bill - the overwhelmingly Democratic congress overuled him on every one. I'm just sayin'.
- 32 million newly insured - I am assuming he's talking about the currently uninsured ranks of Americans, purportedly around 46 million (which I think is at least slightly inflated.) Well, if 19 million will still be uninsured, 46 minus 19 is 27. Only 27 million newly insured. And they won't be all in private insurance. Many of them will be the proud new recipients of Medicaid!
- middle of the road - Okay, I'll give you middle of the road if that means somewhere between leaving health care as is and going for a full blown, goverment-run, single-payer system. Then yes, it's middle-of-the-road. Not middle-of-the-american-people's-feeling-on-the-whole-thing.
I know I'm correct about the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Social Security Act of 1965. I reported only the facts man!
I don't know what's left for the Tea Parties either. I am impressed, however, that they have generated as much steam as they have. Probably the most influential movement in recent history, politically speaking.
GJ said about 12 hours later
Influential, if you count the Scott Brown election. I don't think they'll have much else to show for it, unless they develop a cohesive platform and stay active. Right now, they're feeding off irrational anger stirred by crackpots like Michelle Bachmann and Glen Beck--which probably accounts for the nutjob attraction to this movement.
>> I know I'm correct about the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Social Security Act of 1965. I reported only the facts man!
Too bad more folks can't be bothered to do this. I'll give you a prime example of how not to do this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/ftn/main6341097.shtml Of course I'm cheating--Ms. Bachmann has a history of delusional ramblings, and she makes an inviting target for we lefties.
>> The good news for us is this: In 2014 when the health industry no longer can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, we are going to drop health care for our employees, pay the fine (which would be about $750 for us, a whole lot cheaper than the $2500/month), and then when trouble arises, we'll sign right back up to take care of whatever problems we have to deal with. Hey, you got my vote!
Geoff, I can't wait to see how that strategy works out for you. I think you may find it working out a bit differently than you've got it portrayed above. You might want to read the nitty gritty details before banking on that approach. The fine is there to discourage exactly what you're suggesting, as any system that allowed folks to just jump into insurance when they need coverage would kill the system. You realize that what it's trying to do is prevent insurance companies from doing this to folks, which they do all the time today. Want an example? http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/25/2068267/crowley-newborn-with-heart-defect.html#tvg This kind of crap goes on all over the place. Too bad nobody came up with another solution to this problem, eh?
Geoff said about 13 hours later
Yes I know, but take a look at the current law proposed (if you can figure it out which I'm sure most of whom voted for it didn't bother too). Individual fine is what I'll incur, which looks to either be a fixed amount or 1% of my income. Both of which are FAR less than what I pay monthly. Since our company is less than 50 full time employees, our company does not incur gross fines. I'm sure there will either be something to alter this in the law, or the insurance companies will figure out a way to deny coverage. Prescriptions cause a bit of an issue for those who require ongoing prescriptions with this method, but there are prescription plans that places such as Walgreens offer (and one of our clients, Transparent Health). Get on a plan like that, and your prescription care should be covered for most common prescriptions.
We've got a few years to figure out the loop holes :)
GJ said 1 day later
The health care bill isn't a finished product--more like, it's a start. No doubt we'll find stuff that didn't work, and hopefully have the sense to toss it. Cost control isn't guaranteed either--the CBO is expecting savings of $124B for the deficit, but it is largely expected that out-of-pocket costs will continue to rise, albeit on a more predictable and less onerous scale.
Btw, I looked at the CBO numbers. They are working on assumptions of 50 million uninsured now, whereas that number drops to 22 million will be uninsured by 2014. Obviously, by 2014, with population growth, you can't exactly show how many people migrated from one place to another in terms of plans, but the CBO is expecting the decrease in the uninsured, and an increase of only 11 million to Medicaid. The rest show up in the exchange plans (24 million).
The critical thing here is we have to stop trying to paint this as either the salvation of health care or the dawn of socialist American. It's not either of those things. What it is: an attempt to corral the problems of health care in this country and make the system work more efficiently.
Geoff, to your point on the individual side of things, they are trying to force insurance companies to take on folks with existing conditions, but they are trying to prevent someone from skipping out on insurance until their expenses go through the roof (for example, major surgery or cancer, that kind of thing). It will be very interesting to see how that plays out. In reality, those playing that game should be shown the door--but I'll be shocked if they're able to pull that off (think "death panels"). Failing that response, they need to recognize that pattern early on and deal with it (maybe far higher fines)--because it will kill this plan financially if not nipped in the bud.
I would hope the GOP would smarten up and give up on the repeal language--while it's what the Tea Party wants to hear, it's simply not going to happen anytime soon due to the lack of seats they can win in the midterm elections (they'd need enough not only to get a majority but also to override a veto). I do think the GOP could do far better to find parts of the solution that they can find a better solve for and work to implement those, even if that takes them a few years (read--change of house/senate makeup) to do so.
Of course, this being America, and the electorate being so freaking polarized right now, that's not gonna happen. So, instead, we get to see what impacts the health plan as it stands has on voters, rather than what the left-wing and right-wing media say about it, which is pretty much all we've gotten up to now.
Geoff said 1 day later
Yup I just like shooting holes through things haha. I'm debugging.
As you all probably know, I lean on the conservative side of things. That does not mean that I agree with everything that comes out on Fox News. That also doesn't mean that I disagree with everything on MSNBC and NBC news.
With that said, I can't believe the administration is continuing it's march to diminish Fox News as a news organization. This is EXTREMELY dangerous for any politician or group. Does anyone remember Richard Nixon? He went up against the media and look what happened to him. Of course, he was caught up in a huge scandal (not the media's fault) but trying to bash/marginalize the media just quickened his demise. If you look a little deeper there are a few parallels: economic woes and unpopular war, for example. Nixon hated all media equally for many years, although there was no FOX News back then.
I thought it was just a few rouge individuals who were going to hang themselves out on this one, but when David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel joined in yesterday I just couldn't believe it. They need to let this go and get on with the important business of running the government.
In a free society, you just have to deal with things like this. You know, like I have to deal with GJ! :)
oh you asked for it...can't wait to hear what the liberal giant has to say :P
GJ said about 3 hours later
The liberal giant, indeed. As Steve will testify, I'm more conservative than probably anyone else in the family on several financial management / business issues, but at the same time I support the concepts of welfare / social justice, equal rights for every dang human, right of a woman to choose, and several other left wing planks. So of course, that makes me a liberal. Whatever.
That said, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN are all pathetic excuses for news.
Fox, like it or not, is the mouthpiece of the right wing of the Republican Party. If you can't see this, you're blind. There is one voice of reason on Fox (and the only one I watch on Fox), and his name is Shepard Smith. The rest of them are unabashedly biased--but then again, half of what passes for news on Fox is entertainment. Glen Beck, anyone? Sean Hannity? I could go on an on. As for news reporting, see what I have to say about CNN. They're guilty of the same sins.
CNBC whorships (yes, that's a intentional pun, folks) at the altar of the financial gods. They continually portray the false images that the market can be timed and played (it cannot), that certain financial managers are very talented and that's why their returns are so good at the moment (which is total BS), and basically plays up Wall Street like it's the damn most important thing in the world. They have a very one-dimensional view of the economy, and frankly most of what they report on pretty much useless. Kind of like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
MSNBC--these doofuses are kind of like the liberal equivalent of Fox. There is at least a little good programming on--as liberal as she is, Rachel Maddow is a great interviewer and actually respectful of her guests. Olbermann is a blowhard, not quite as bad as Beck but my leftist tendencies are probably coloring my opinion. As for their news reporting, look to what I have to say about CNN, as the same holds here.
CNN--these guys were the first real 24/7 news organization. You know what? We don't need 24 hours of news--there isn't that much going on that you can fill a day, at least not enough to justify ratings. So, instead, they invent BREAKING NEWS and URGENT BROADCASTS and beat them to a pulp. Remember Balloon Boy? Michael Jackson's death? Any pretty white girl gone missing? It's not that these guys are liberal, it's more that they're just a bunch of no-nothing talking heads who jump on any old thing that might be great tabloid material, dress it up in fancy graphics, and endlessly rehash minimal details and expand on them illogically.
News in this country absolutely sucks--it's turned very much into an entertainment venue, and the value of news they deliver today is almost non-existent. It's a waste of my time, but more importantly, what values is this teaching to our kids?
So, you ask, where do I get my news? Mostly internet (AP news feeds), print (The Economist and the Wall Street Journal), and the John Stewart show. Before you laugh at that last one, give me a second. Yes, he's got a liberal bent, and yes, it's a comedy show, but I have news for you: he covers news items that are fairly important, yet the big news channels don't bother with. Add to that he does interviews with fairly interesting people and asks some pretty good questions. It's pretty ironic that I go to an ENTERTAINMENT show and find more news there than on a NEWS PROGRAM. That's not just ironic, it's sad.
However, as much I find that Fox News is a joke, I agree with Eric that this effort by the Obama administration to go after Fox is ill advised. I know they're trying to win in the court of public opinion, but they need to face up to the fact that a significant portion of the population is both crazy and die hard (insert right or left wing here as appropriate) and will eat up whatever crap Fox, CNN, MSNBC or even CNBC claims as fact without any real evidence, no matter how outrageous. Those people will never be swayed--concentrate on the swing voters, people who actually think about political issues rather than just repeat sound bytes they've heard, and get them on board your programs. Or (Obama, are you listening?), put together a program that will fix the health care problem, not simply expand on the mistakes of the past.
Geoff said about 5 hours later
conservative business issues? GJ? Now this I have to hear. Throwing money into welfare programs is about as distant from "conservative" values as the nearest star is from Earth. Now, the term conservative has quite a few meanings, so perhaps you have a different interpretation than I, but I'd be curious to know some of these "conservative" issues you fall in line with. :)
GJ said about 5 hours later
"Throwing money into welfare programs" is a typical sound byte from a wannabe conservative. You have a well-known aversion to welfare, big hairy deal. You also fail to recognize the need for any kind of welfare, and would rather live in a dystopian Ayn Rand world. Enjoy.
Conservative? Here you go. No corporate welfare. Bailing out the domestic automakers and then going on to practically buy GM was STUPID, and the GOP were the "conservatives" who came up with this. Let the economics of the day determine which industries live and which die.
Taxes have a purpose. Keep them as low as possible to prevent starving the economy, but don't cut them recklessly for political points. Balance the budget, and stop floating huge deficits and claiming that "it's the way business gets done in Washington." Cut all programs as needed to achieve this--share the pain, from the military to education to health/human services. It's this pain that will definitely show government which programs have the most value by their absence and ramp up of problems. Use those findings to set future budgeting priorities.
Welfare, yes, let's talk welfare. Purpose--to alleviate suffering of the unfortunate. For the younger crowd--help educate those who slipped through the cracks in our education system--try to enable them to become productive citizens, and become as self-sufficient as possible. For the older crowd--we have lots more of them floating around now that the average lifespan of people have gone up so much. We should be prepared to help feed, clothe and house them if we value life so very much, since not everyone had the smarts or the opportunity to save for their old age. Certainly, you can't give them a life of luxury, but do you turn them out in the street? Yeah, I know Geoff would. But the country as a whole doesn't think that way, which is how the welfare systems have survived so long.
I won't claim for a second that there is no fraud, nor that it's not a significant drain on the money we pour into these programs. That doesn't mean we just shut off welfare, either.
Back to conservative ideas:
The Constitution is not a joke. Acts to circumvent it outside of lawfully prescribed methods of changing it should be dealt with harshly (Bush/Cheney and their Patriot Act, I'm looking at you).
Foreign policy: we need to be much less focuses on spreading democracy and far more focuses on spreading human rights. Keep a potent fighting force, but greatly scale back our nuclear arms. Look to encourage free trade as much as possible, and avoid forming trade treaties that give unreasonable terms for either party.
Revise the tax code--but keep the idea that the more money you make, the more the government takes. Get rid of all the goofy exemptions, etc. Pursue tax dodgers aggressively.
See, I'm not quite a full-bore liberal. More like a left leaning moderate. Until you get me talking about the religious right. :)
Geoff said about 6 hours later
I never said eliminate welfare, it needs to be far more strict however. I've always believed the majority of welfare goes to the least contributing citizens. I don't believe in encouraging or providing for these people. It serves the country no good. I Would like to see some statistics as to how much welfare has increased over the years...in both availability and the number of people participating. It appears to be growing...not good. I'll have to do some research.
At what point should the hard workers stop working hard if their effort pays the effortless? The current economy is a great example. Tried to hire an intern and she refused (laid off, on government pay) because she was being paid more by the government. Right there, it goes to show that the program itself encourages fraud and abuse. I don't blame her...she can make more money doing nothing. And to boot, they've lengthened benefits yet again. Woohoo!
GJ said about 7 hours later
Or is it an indictment of how much you offered to pay the intern? :)
Geoff said about 8 hours later
$12/hr to answer phone calls??? (and we only get maybe a dozen or so calls a day) I'd say that is far greater than flipping burgers for $8/hr. Thats a little over $2000 a month...not horrible pay compared to making $0/month.
While that doesn't pay as well as her original job, it was a temporary job while she looked. In that regard, she could have reported the income, had reduced government benefits (thus saving tax payers money) and still make enough to survive...well maybe not the American way, but you could eat food and live someplace for $25k/year. It's a lousy system as Dad has come to find out. It needs fixing.
Lets hope the economy continues up as the stock market appears to be doing. This country needs all the money we can get.
GJ said about 11 hours later
Yep, I'd agree there's a lot to fix. Hey, we agree on something. :)
The market recovery--don't bet it will last. There are more storms brewing on the horizon that should erupt in the next six months or so. I'm not sure we even saw bottom, unfortunately, but only time will tell.
Geoff said about 12 hours later
Ok we need more people to jump in and argue...GJ and I can only beat each other up so much...however enjoyable it may be.
Any takers? :P
Eric said about 20 hours later
Well, the discussion took an amazing turn that has nothing to do with what I originally wrote.
News organizations will continue to exist. Everyone has an opinion, I don't care who you are or what news organization you are with. It is going to be present in your news reporting. Some are left-leaning and some are right-leaning. Some more than others. None are completely in the center and it's dangerous for the administration to tell the American people that CNN and ABC are acceptable news organizations but not FOX news. Sounds like something Hugo Chavez might have said before he took control of the media in Venezuela.
For their sake, they better back down or there's going to be a huge backlash. FOX personalities are in a feeding frenzy over this. And they have a HUGE following. It doesn't matter how crazy you think they are.
I knew this would happen if I opened up the political floodgates, but I just couldn't stop myself. This is my biggest concern with government. Tax the crap out of me. Take away this, make me do that. But don't tell me what to think. You say FOX news is not a news organization, you are basically saying that their opinion is wrong. IT'S NOT WRONG. IT'S A DIFFERENT OPINION. And that's okay in the US. Or it used to be.
Eric said about 21 hours later
Oh and Rachel Maddow? No offense but she is one of the most annoying personalities in news as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree with a single thing that comes out of her mouth. Just my opinion.
Eric said 1 day later
On the other items (since we're talking about them):
No Bailouts! (agree with GJ)
Low Taxes, Cut Spending, Balance Budget (agree with GJ)
Welfare - necessary, especially for disabled (physically and mentally) and for those caught in situations that are no fault of their own (layoffs, accidents, etc.) I kind of agree with GJ, but I agree with Geoff somewhat too. Tough because it's mostly a state issue, not federal. Or should be. Fed keep out!
Constitution is the law of the land. (agree with GJ)
Foreign Policy - kind of agree with GJ. Don't spread democracy, but strongly encourage free societies. Free societies will foster better human rights (although it may take considerable time.) Free trade? Won't happen. Fair trade needs to happen. Charge same fees they charge for imports. Seems fair to me.
Revise Tax Code - Absolutely. Flat tax. Done deal. Russia did it. The government takes in a ton more cash than it did before and everyone's on the same playing field. Seems fair to me.
In general, the Fed needs to back way off. This is the UNITED STATES. Our government was founded on principles that protect States rights. That has worked very well in the short time it has been our nations backbone. Yes, the Federal government has a purpose in many aspects of our lives. However, there are many things going on right now (like Health Care ding ding ding!) that are State responsibility, not Fed. The reason why so many other countries have so much government control is because THEY DON'T HAVE STATES! Their Fed IS the only government! In the US, the States hold the greatest amount of government control - or should. If you don't agree with this, than you better take a look at the Constitution again. Especially with this Health Care bill looming, I cannot believe this is not the major arguement on the airwaves. I think it's absolutely important to have proper health care (notice I didn't say health insurance) for everyone. But it is the State's responsibility to enact it, not the Fed.
Geoff said 1 day later
I couldn't agree more...and probably more reason for me to get the hell out of NY since they would be the first to pass any health legislature reform. This state's taxes are so ludicrous, not to mention my town! In the past 2 years my monthly mortgage has increased by $140/month due to taxes (I've got a fixed loan). 13% increase...damn town! And don't get me started on what it costs to provide health care to our employees. Anyone in need of an international website? There are on sale this week!
GJ said 1 day later
Flat tax has some serious flaws. I'm not going to go into them right now, but there's a reason why the billionaires like this one a lot. :)
States rights are overblown. The reason why we have so much government it because of duplicate government functions at the state and federal level. The Constitution favors state rights over federal, but the federal government (both conservatives and liberals) have moved a lot of the onus onto the federal level. We're also a player on the world stage far greater than the writers of the Constitution ever imagined. Due to that, we pretty much need a strong federal government, lest we simply break up the union and effectively become 50 independent countries.
I find it endlessly amusing that those that want the strongest military and most aggressive foreign policies often are the strongest proponents of state's rights. The two aren't overly compatible.
Early on in the country's history, most of the laws on the books were state based. However, left to their own devices, states maintained slavery, and the feds intervened. Left to their own devices, states allowed factories to exploit children, and the feds intervened. Again, left to their own devices, some states encouraged and expanded segregation and Jim Crow laws, and the feds again intervened. Was the fed out of line? My bet is, you can find a whole lot of conservatives who think the fed overstepped their authority in each instance. You may or may not agree. You can probably guess where I fall on that scale, being the big bad liberal.
So, there is a lot precedent for the feds acting on health care. However, the fed is really good at screwing this sort of thing up. From what I can tell, they aren't so much screwing this one up as they are pretty much not making any meaningful changes. Costs will not be contained, maybe 50% of the uninsured will now have some coverage, and taxes will go up. That's not a solution in my book. Obama has the power to ram home real change here, but it would take courage, since the mainline Dems don't really want the hard choices fixes and neither does the GOP (the "don't touch our seniors" party).
Speaking of NY taxes, they are indeed high. Quite a bit of that is waste, but we also carry way more services than many other states and spend a whole lot on education so our kids get smart and move out of state. :)
Geoff said 1 day later
Guess I missed that class :)
Eric said 1 day later
The rest of us got that one! Not that Michigan's the best place to be right now.
Needless-to-say, the vast majority of people in this country agree on 90% (give or take) of everything. It's that last 10% that fires everyone up!
I don't know how ending slavery or imposing child labor laws gives precedent for giving people "affordable" health insurance. If that's true precedent, than what isn't? Oh, and did you see who the group is that is significantly increasing their support of the public option? Seniors! Why in the world would seniors support a public option? They already have a public health plan, duh!
Marc said 2 days later
Eric keeps mentioning things should be done at the state level and not fed. I agree. To be honest though, it seems like the media and possibly even the state representatives are constantly pushing the federal government to take action. Maybe it's just down here in NC, but the state level representatives don't seem to do much of anything other than escalate things up to the feds. What's the cause of that problem and how do we fix that? While the president and federal government are supposed to protect our rights and constitution, they can't be expected to get everyone's opinion, that's why we have this representative based government.
And don't tell me the way to fix it is to get involved in politics. I'm paying these people's salaries so I don't have to bicker about this kind of stuff all day. :)
GJ said 2 days later
OK, Eric, I'll spell out the precedent for you. The Fed intervenes when the States fail to act. The States have a history of failing to act. Since health care is the domain of the state (according to you, and for the most part, that's correct), you claim the feds should butt out.
Why is that? Because the states are doing such a bang-up job of managing health care? Ding ding. They're not. Why do you think we're having all this fun? Because, frankly, medical spending is bankrupting the federal and state govenments, bankrupting employers, and not doing a very good job of keeping the population as a whole healthy. So, that's why the Fed is taking this on.
So rather than play this game of "hey, hands off, this is a state issue" how about we play "hey, stop playing around here and make some real changes to this stupid system that both saves on cost but ensures basic coverage for all." That would seem to be the more productive of the two, imho.
Sorry, Marc, but if you check out and leave the governing to the politicians, you get the lovely corruption we have today. Accountability is what keeps these morons in check.
Eric said 3 days later
I'm going to sound like a republican jack@$$ now, but here goes.
Medicare is out of control. Social Security is out of control. Those need to be fixed. They need to propose some solutions, pick the most viable ones and run with it. And not add to the deficit.
Everyone in America (citizen or not) can get the health care they need 24 hours a day. Yes, there are problems with that. I understand. We pay the cost of the uninsured. Too bad. That's one of the things we need to deal with until the government gets their costs under control. Do people get turned away? Not often, since it's illegal. Do we need to enforce this and make sure everyone is treated fairly? Absolutely. And notice above that I said "need." If you look at your health insurance policy there are a ton of things covered that you don't necessarily need. But everyone should have access to care that is needed to keep them healthy and cares for them in emergency situations. Does that mean they need an insurance policy? Not necessarily.
GJ, you yourself said we need to sacrifice. You said the government needs to get spending under control and be fiscally responsible. I don't see the bailouts, stimulus package, cash for clunkers, climate bill, or health care bill as being fiscally responsible. The only one I even have any support for (small as it may be) is the health care issue. Only because I agree that every needs to have access to quality health care. So do the minimum right now to make sure that everyone has that - they don't need insurance necessarily, and they don't need to be on Medicare+. Then, once govermnent spending is under control, fiscally responsible decisions can be made to come up with a health care system that is fully funded within the federal (or state) budget.
I think you have to agree that the current bill won't solve all the issues and will increase spending dramatically. Look at Massachusetts. Everyone is covered by insurance by their employer or by a state insurance program. Spending is out of control. Sure it gave everyone insurance. But now they are looking at scaling back the program and reducing or eliminating services to try to get the costs under control. Why would the federal plan be any different? Because it can be funded from wasteful spending within the Medicare system? Please. Based on past performance, the federal government will be lucky to keep Medicare spending at the current level. Let alone the fact that the number of people joining the ranks of Medicare over the next 10 years is going to skyrocket.
Do I still think the Fed should butt out? Absolutely, for now. There was not enough money to run the government during the Bush Administration, which was a nightmare. The spending now is unfathomable. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can think at this rate the country will every recover, financially. Prove me wrong. Maybe the Fed is buying lottery tickets. It better be one big windfall.
Geoff said 3 days later
Now if we had just elected Ron Paul we could be rid of the Federal Government and put some money in our pocket :)
-ANONYMOUS UNITED
GJ had posted a very good article awhile back that I thought had a very good approach to health care. I'd encourage any of you who didn't take a look at it to read it. Treat health insurance like car insurance. Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or tire rotation...and health insurance shouldn't cover our regular check ups...it should cover the unexpected and costly procedures. This would obviously reduce costs and put more money in our pocket to decide when we REALLY need to go to the doctors. It's quite a bit more detailed than this, but just to give you an idea. It's a good read.
GJ said 3 days later
Actually, you came off sounding pretty reasonable. I don't agree with you in many places, but you sound a hell of a lot more reasonable than what I hear on Fox News. :)
Medicare/Social Security: agreed. Probably need a serious redefinition of the mission, and almost certainly a reduction in benefits. Probably going to be impossible to do without a grandfather clause that doesn't affect existing retirees, and then affects others closer to retirement on some kind of sliding benefit scale. This one will require a huge amount of political capital to pull off.
Health care: No, everyone cannot get the health care they need 24/7/365. Don't have insurance? You pay more than double than what the insurance companies pay, and medical care is expensive. Darcy was in the hospital for a week back in 1994 prior to us having insurance. That cost us $18,000. A freaking bottle of glucose was $400---four hundred dollars for a liter of SUGAR WATER!! Our yearly income was $24,000 at that time. Yeah, that was affordable--and we ended up getting NYS welfare to help us out. Had we not had that option, we would have been thrown into bankruptcy immediately. Had the hospital known that welfare was available to folks like us, they would have turned us away. Yeah, that's not health care for everyone, that's healthcare for the insured and the wealthy. Thus, the health care debate isn't just about money.
Sacrifice--yes, we do. We have grown accustomed to too much medical care--we spend far too much on expanding the lives of very sick people, and far too little on preventative care and health education. We need to move the health system to a system of competition, where you pay for results, not work done (like legions of testing, as a prime example of waste).
I would agree that the plan being proposed today will do the following:
* not be economically responsible
* not cover everyone, but drop the number of non-covered folks by half
* cost so much in political capital that we won't dare to touch this again for another ten years
* and in the end, we will end up making the same mistakes that Massachusetts made.
However, the idea of having the fed "butt out" is simplistic. They're already in the game, in the form of Medicare. Are you saying they should just drop Medicare and let the states pick up the responsibility? I don't profess to know the state of Michigan's finances, but New York is running an sweet deficit right now too. They're also not exactly the bastion of efficiency, either--so all we're doing it moving the costs to the states. For richer states (NY is one of these), it may be hard, but they can probably pull it off and replicate the crappy federal solution. For poorer states, (WV is one of these), you can pretty much write off that health care, since they don't have the resources and rely more heavily on the fed to make it.
So, no, the answer really isn't "dump it on the states" so much as it is "cut costs, cut benefits, cut corruption and inefficiency." It's also "change the game." The insurance model in this country has to go buh-bye, and instead we should look at turning medical care into any other consumer-driven industry. That's a very difficult thing to do, but necessary in order to provide cost containment going forward. So, how do we get that done?
Geoff said 3 days later
We simply can't. Too much damn money in the medical/pharma industry. Their political pull is mighty and unless we get someone with the balls to give them the finger and actually revolt against the system, nothing is going to change dramatically. Band-aids on a leaking damn is all this is. We'll continue down this road until it gets so bad people get so fed up they actually DO something about it...and by DO I don't mean Talk, I mean Molotov Cocktail. REAL change requires some significant action. Not that I encourage violence, but that is usually a common catalyst for change.
GJ said 3 days later
You think the medical and pharmaceutical companies are the only players here? How about the insurance companies? How about all the retirees? They vote a whole lot more than people your age do, and their elected reps pay attention to THEM as a result. So those elected reps won't touch Medicare or Social Security. See how this game works? You want change, you can effect it--by encouraging your generation to participate in government, rather than just complain about it or make dangerous seditious statements.
Keep drinking that Kool Aid. If you believe that the only true mechanism for change is violence, you obviously don't believe in the American Experiment. Since you don't think this form of government works, what form would you suggest? A hint--dictatorships are very good at getting things done, and quickly.
Geoff said 3 days later
Kool Aid...sure sure. The old fogies out number us young folks so there isn't much we can do but watch our money burn under the current scheme of things. I voted. I've emailed my reps. Got any other suggestions?
GJ said 3 days later
Kill a few old fogies?
Marc said 3 days later
What did we learn? Violence brings change! :)
GJ said 3 days later
Oh, it does. Just often, not the change originally envisioned, and typically at great cost. But, as the grand history of the human race has shown, we resort to it rather depressingly frequently, and I have little doubt we'll do it again someday even here in the States.
I'll be the first to admit that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is easily just over the top, btw. Funniest clip about him had to be the Ben Affleck sketch of him on SNL, though.
So there's this debate about healthcare going on--and as usual, politics of the day means that most people don't really know the details, so instead they make up facts and argue for/against those. Take one example here from the Investor's Business Daily...claiming that, among other things, the system of healthcare in the U.K. is so bad that someone like Stephen J. Hawking, the brilliant wheelchair bound scientist, would not have had a chance to survive in such a system. Good thing he didn't grow up there, huh?
Except that he did. And lives there to this day. Well, you know what they say--don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
Fox News Channel has been on a rampage over the past year to demonize Amsterdam as Hell on Earth (tm). See, Amsterdam is very liberal, and very agnostic. They don't outlaw pot, nor do they criminalize prostitution, and, egads, they allow people to off themselves in a nice, peaceful manner if they don't feel like experiencing terminal cancer in person to the end. All of this is against Fox News' version of morality, so obviously, they need to portray Amsterdam in the proper light so that it doesn't occur here. I mean, it's their moral duty!
Apparently, at least one resident of Amsterdam doesn't take kindly to this slander:
Let me note that the biggest perpetrator of this nonsense is none other than Bill O'Reilly. Take Bill O, Glen B, Sean H, and a few others out of the picture and Fox would come off as simply somewhat conservative (nowhere near fair and balanced).
Steve said 4 days later
Hence the reason I despise Fox News above all others. I have more respect for the National Inquirer, at least they have fun with their lies....
GJ said 4 days later
:) Very true, but I find the Weekly World News even more creative. Bat Boy, anyone?
I think I know the Republicans strategy...smear themselves so much, that the Republican party becomes completely ridiculous, then some of the "smarter" republicans will start a new party in the hopes of rebuilding the republican political beliefs and this country (seems like a good tag line). There has to be some logical explanation for how ridiculous many of them are acting.
An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets:
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.
She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).
Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.
By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand (and/or this info is withheld from them) that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.
Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from the Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers.
I wish tax paying was more like investing. It'd be nice to allot my tax dollars to specific places I feel deserve/need it. This was good little article Kristen, I knew what was coming, but sometimes it's almost comical to read through the whole process.
GJ said about 12 hours later
I'm guessing Drew has a slightly different take on derivatives? :)
Kristen said 1 day later
I'm not sure, but he at least probably knows what one is. LOL
