At 9/20/07 10:06 AM, poxpower wrote: HAHAHA YES.
Suck on that!

Are you under the impression that that's good for Canada? It's good for Canadian citizens who want to buy stuff in other countries, but it's terrible for your businesses and manufacturers.

On one hand I can see understand why Canadian idiots gloat about this; they think that just because their currency is more valuable than the dollar now that they are more valuable than the US or something. Serious Canadians will realize that this actually sucks huge amounts of ass for them.

The reason people like Ron Paul is that he's a politician with principal. True, he has something going against him for virtually every voting demographic, myself included, but he's also not necessarily running to get elected. Campaigns also exist for educational purposes, and to broaden the debate. I appreciate his presence in the GOP primary.

At 8/3/07 04:51 PM, Elfer wrote: I'd probably go for the angle of telling them that they can tell people their company is environmentally friendly.

smart. Are you going into business?

Inspired by a call on the Rush Limbaugh show today:

You own a company that makes "smartf" lights for office buildings. Your light can sense when a person is in the room and turns on and off based on whether a person's using the room. The sensors are x amount to install but are expected to save business owners hundreds of thousands on their monthly utility bills.

If you sell this product to businesses, how would you market this product? Obviously the cost savings are the first thing you'd highlight, but would you try for a global warming angle, even if you think global warming is bullshit? Would you incorporate environmentalism at all into the sales pitch?

In general, how effective is global warming as a marketing tool? We here about people switching to hybrid cars all the time: how much of that is based on environmentalism and how much of that is based on energy consumption?

At 8/2/07 07:03 AM, Jizzlebang wrote:

At 8/2/07 02:06 AM, NorseBeast wrote: None. It's not the government's responsibility to babysit anyone.

Babysit? No. Help? Yes.

For the people, by the people.

People are stupid and sometimes irrational. They tend to act against their best interests at times, and socialism is one of those phenomenons.

I demand that the other topic be locked because it's stupid and that other guy who started it is an idiot. Come on mods, it'd be funny.

Rupert Murdoch won control of the WSJ and Dow Jones and company. What are the implications for the Journal, its competitors, and journalism in general?

At 8/1/07 08:26 PM, Me-Patch wrote: If the United States government was stupid we wouldn't be the richest nation on Earth.

I don't attest ANY of the success of the US to its government.

At 8/1/07 08:12 PM, AapoJoki wrote: failed politicians.

lol redundancy.

I tend to agree with you for two reasons. 1) Believing the government is evil implies you also believe the government is smart and 2) believing the government is evil is also generally a conspiratorial way of looking at the world.

Sometimes I do believe that Democrats strive to create misery and dependency on government in order to retain power, but that is probably a side-effect of their actions, not their intentions.

At 8/1/07 07:33 PM, TouchMyLobster wrote: I recently saw SiCKo and it got me thinking about how America isn't like other countries because we use the HMO system.

Oh dear. Is that what Michael Moore told you in this movie? Oh brother.

Most medical plans are PPO now, which are preferred provider. People now have the choice of choosing doctors inside AND outside their network (though outside of their network they have higher co-pays). The HMO system is highly outdated and no longer the norm. I guess since this topic is based on a flawed premise, there's no need to debate, is there?

Is the United State government stupid or evil?

I heard the debate was completely retarded, and I can't say I'm surprised.

I don't think the single payer system is compatible with our culture.

I'm all for increasing coverage, especially through the free market. But in order to do that, we have to ask: What's good about our American system?

1) People can choose their own doctors
2) There's a choice between plans (HMO, PPO, POS)
3) Lower wait times
4) Higher doctor responsiveness
5) Doctors are happier here and better paid than in other places
6) Less vacation time and minimization of adverse selection keep workers efficient.

To convert to a single payer system would likely destroy all of these items. Besides, should adults who aren't producing anything be covered?

You know? We should try it, I hear it's very lucrative.

At 7/14/07 11:23 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Can we all say we hate that Umbrella song?

No we cannot. You hold your tongue.

At 7/15/07 04:50 PM, Mr-Money wrote: A question: why the fuck would you want to teach, apart from longer vacation time?

Because I want to write novels for a living.

SevenSeize, my point is that you have to go to school for 4 years in order to be an educator at a public school, whether it's elementary or secondary. My degree is in Finance, which I think means that I could teach high schoolers business management, personal finance, economics, or most pre-calc math classes. However, due to regulation I will never be able to unless I go to school for another four years. IMO, that's garbage, especially since an education in education does little to increase quality.

At 7/15/07 10:30 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Teachers are already underpaid for the amount of work and shit they have to go through, and you want to cut their wages even more?

I'd like to take issue with that assertion. Public school teachers are overpaid because there are people who will do what they do for less money. They're called private school teachers, and many times they're better anyway.

Sorry if this seems like a rant.

I was thinking about what kind of career I might have after college. I thought that maybe I'd work as a teacher. As a teacher, it makes no difference whether I work in a public or private school since the quality of education depends on the quality of my own teaching. I'm not really anti-public school, I went to a public school after all.

So it turns out that in every state of the Union, you need a degree in education AS WELL as a primary concentration (like math, a science, history, etc.)

What purpose does this policy do aside from keeping people who decide they want to do something different from their major half-way through college out of teaching? In particular, the government is passing up many intelligent, even brilliant young men and women out of college in order to standardize the educational experiences of young children. Is this policy really so wise when our nation is apparently experiencing a shortage in public school teachers?

Proposals for change:

1) If standardization is so important (I don't think it is), A licensing test would be a better, more efficient "smell test."
2) Get rid of the degree requirement entirely and just pay them less. It's not like teachers work for the money anyway.

Paying taxes fucking sucks.

The real Republican Survival Guide

1) Never make eye contact with a Republican. They can't see you as long as you're not looking in their eyes.
2) If a Republican kidnaps you, offer the universal handshake of the stealth-jew.
3) When a Republican speaks to you, talk about how the people over at PETA are psychos, because everyone agrees with that.
4) Republicans are known for their guns, both muscle-wise and the shooting kind. Defend yourself with a large black man.
5) You will never outrun a Republican without snorting a line of Columbian cocaine first.

At 7/12/07 05:04 PM, tony4moroney wrote: http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.c fm?ID=7390
I haven't read it yet, I'm just saying there are problems with privatization of a necessity. There have been successful cases, but you'll be hard pressed to find a water utility privately run that isn't in some way regulated or run without government oversight.

The whole reason that the privatization movement gained momentum in the first place is due to huge costs, inefficient design, and inept service. Do I believe that the private sector could better provide our water, transportation, electricity, etc? Yes, yes, and yes. And I will be hard-pressed to find ANY business that isn't in some way regulated or run without government intervention.

I'd agree with that, the primary problem with health insurance is their free ability to deny coverage due to some absurd technical fault.

The main problem is actually the fact that businesses are supposed to provide insurance, and that a lot of small businesses just can't afford it. Finding out how to solve this problem is truly the million-dollar question.

Yeah some estimate 45 million but that includes illegal immigrant count. I'm a little confused about what the hell would happen under that circumstance. Would we provide insurance to illegal 'aliens', or just deny healthcare?

We do provide healthcare to immigrants during emergencies, and the state government picks up the tab. Under universal health-care immigrants would almost certainly be provided healthcare.

Look I agree with you there, but I'm just saying its in a corporation's best interests to minimize costs. If the cost is providing healthcare, then we've already got ourselves a severe conflict of interest.

It's the corporation's ultimate goal to maximize profit. That can be done by minimizing costs or maximizing revenues. I think it's more humane for a business to neutralize adverse selection by charging high risks appropriately rather than completely denying coverage. Unfortunately, the state makes it easier to do the latter rather than the former.

Yeah it pretty much is. But the problem with supplemental insurance is it limits personal spending because you've got to contribute to taxes 401k(in a way), food, bills and foot an extra bill. It'll limit your spending and probably cause an economic recession/ downswing because itll inevitably lower consumer confidence.

I'm not sure you understand how it works. Supplemental insurance actually maintains a level of consumption that isn't possible without it. It works like this: You get hurt and can't work, you're paid for lost time. You get diagnosed with cancer, you're paid in advance for time lost.

Besides, shouldn't the government saving money make us nervous by this point? It's so...unnatural.

A. Tax cuts are the best. What's the point of keeping money if we don't have a national debt to pay off? Empower the individual, not the government.

c) Keep taxes the same, and develop new social and scientifical programs with the surplus

This doesn't sound like keeping a surplus at all. It just sounds like getting rid of the surplus some other way than tax cuts. BOO.

At 7/12/07 04:22 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: A private/public partnership would work.

Anytime the government pays a private company for goods and services, they are over-priced. Why? Because firms, just like asshole liberals, think that the government's pocketbook knows no end, and for what limits there are they can just sell in treasury bonds overseas.

At 7/12/07 04:03 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Don't forget that your also a traitor if your neutral towards the corporations.

Or an investor in said corporations. Fun fact: Did you know that Exxon Mobil is the number one rated oil company in environmental standards?

At 7/12/07 01:16 PM, tony4moroney wrote: So hey, if it means losing these jobs to improve healthcare then yes I'm all for itI.
I do agree that it may have a slightly averse affect on the economy, but itd be a little insignificant bump.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs028.htm

The official numbers are 2.3 million employees, plus 150,000 independent agents (like me). Employed in the US, by insurance companies...whenever this data was taken.

Try taking 2.4 million plus jobs out of the US economy. That means 1) more people without jobs 2) less income 3) less tax revenues 4) higher government pay-outs (unemployment) 5) decreased global competitiveness and consumption. Among other things, can the US really afford to lose millions of jobs and incomes? Can a family afford it? Is that really compassionate?

Jesus. There's a reason for government regulations. Its so companies don't rise premiums to obscene prices and go batshit at the health and socio-economic expense of the general population, cable companies much?

Did you know that insurance premiums in my particular state and in many other states are all regulated by their state government so they're not excessive?

There's been plenty of problems with privatization of water utilities.

Aside from the Georgia failure, what else is there?

People make the argument 'if you don't like your healthcare service go to another one'. The problem is, the problem with the company arises when you need them to pay out for a health condition, if you go to another one you'll simply be denied service because of 'pre-existing conditions on application' so you're stuck. Get the idea of the problem now?
--

This is why I argue for disallowing insurance companies to deny coverage, but accurately quote according to risk of the individual.

No its not going to encourage healthy lifestyles, if anything looking and feeling good, not being shunned by society and causing yourself a multitude of health problems should be enough of a motivation. What it simply means is these obese and chain-smokers will become too much of a liability and will look at obscene premiums which they won't be able to afford, like the 38 million americans that already can't.

If the "38 million" (I've heard up to 50 million, but I'm skeptical) were covered, the prices of premiums would be lower for everyone due to increased diversification of risk. All they need is a job that has health insurance right now.

2) Find archaic cases of regulation that increase costs and eliminate them. Knowing the federal government, there are such cases of regulation.

making an obscene amount of profits, and are making more over every year, and you propose more deregulation to increase efficiency?

Not for insurance companies, I'm talking about for doctors. By the way, insurance profit is not feuled by premiums and controlling costs alone. There are investments made, and the better the investments they higher the profits. Interest rates are pretty high right now if you haven't noticed, so it makes perfect sense that an increase in interest rates will cause an increase in corporate profits for insurers.

3) Establish portable HSAs and supplemental insurance. The government could do this or private companies could do this. Supplemental insurance companies like Aflac provide cash to pay for co-pays and bills. HSAs allow people to save up for unplanned co-pay expenses.

Not such a bad idea, but no this isn't going to resolve the problem of 38 million uninsured americans. And though it may slightly improve the financial security of those stricken by a medical crises its also going to inhibit their financial freedom.

From what I've heard, Sicko is all about people with health insurance who went bankrupt by co-payments. HSAs and supplemental insurance are perfect for stopping such measures (with supplemental insurance like Aflac being the best choice).

At 7/12/07 01:39 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Sorry i retract my first statement.
You're right on Moore wanting to abolish healthcare corporations. (I watched most of the movie, unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the rest). Personally i think this is fucking ridiculous, you can introduce universal healthcare without abolishing the corporations. The rest of my arguments stand.

I'm still in the process of reading the article about Atlanta, Georgia's experiment with privatization.

When a government agency puts a public utility up to a bid, the whole point is to alleviate it from the expensive state regulation, not keep it in place. If they wanted to save 20 million dollars a year, they should have given United Water a free hand, not the same regulation. United Water isn't free of blame either, they should have negotiated better, made their projections more conservative and did more research on the structure of the city.

Point is, this doesn't prove that privatization doesn't work. If you want to prove privatization doesn't work, ask for bids without strings attached.

At 7/12/07 11:56 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 7/12/07 07:51 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That's the whole point of a free market: to find societal needs and fix them with a product or service.

I haven't seen Sicko, but here's the freemarket solution to healthcare; Insurance companies (which exist to maximise profits) are given carte blanche to investigate (buy) health records.

Insurers actually have this power, but only for individual policies. However, there are a variety of privacy measures in place to keep an insurer from abusing this power.

Of course they should be allowed to blood-test for dormant genes, and pre-cursor ailments aswell. In fact, if they have a crystal-ball, they should be allowed to use that too. Heck, why call it insurance at all? Just call it illdebtedness.

You've touched upon some of the more controversial aspects of the plan. Eventually I predict that humans will be able to predict what kinds of health problems people will have from the day they are born, and then insurance companies (which exist to maximize profits) will likely decline their risks. As of current, the United States does not allow insurers to discriminate on the basis of (unrelated) genetic properties, but who knows when that will change. Fortunately, I think a lot of health risks will be curable or preventable early on if the United States continues innovating (I do think innovation would be stifled by increased regulation).

Are they going to charge depending on frequency of all sporting activities? After all, atheletes put their body on the line more than regular un-fit people.

This is to be decided by insurers. If you're talking about professional athletes, they are covered by blanket insurance when they're on the field, and it's paid for by whatever national league they're playing in. I'd say in total they pay much more in premiums than the people who watch them on television.

See, you can't just say this will affect only morbid obese people. A whole swathe of "healthy activities" would become surcharged by insurers.

No way. Healthy activities like "running, lifting weights, playing catch?" Believe it or not, the data show that those who spend 30-60 minutes 3-5 days a week on such activities are less likely to become sick AND have an accident. Rock climbing and base-jumping? Yes, they would probably come with higher premiums.

At 7/12/07 02:05 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: what is wrong with putting a baby up for adoption? abortions cost alot, giving a kid to a adoption agency isnt. why do people choose abortion over adoption even though the adoption choice is easier?

It's a matter of selfishness. Be honest, how would you like having your offspring being raised by another family without day to day knowledge of how your child is doing? That in itself has a psychological effect similar to abortion, though at least the child's getting a life.

When the mother chooses to rid herself of the child, she is going to suffer psychologically regardless. The best way to prevent abortions are to encourage responsible sexual behavior.

At 7/12/07 02:45 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Hmm.. Fitness fanatics can have just as high health costs as couch potatoes. Sporty types are particularly prone to accidents with lasting (expensive) injuries. After all, morbid obesity is pretty much a modern phenomenon caused by freemarket forces (advertising bad foods to couch potatoes). The tobacco industry even more so. Effectively your question is whether there can be freemarket solutions to freemarket problems.

That's not my question, since any asshole could figure out that one, no offense. That's the whole point of a free market: to find societal needs and fix them with a product or service. Admittedly, since the public demands the needs there are times when the product or service might be morally questionable.

Fitness fanatics? You mean exercise builimia? Why are you splitting hairs here? Surely you can see that an insurance company would prefer to give higher rates to a bigger health risk. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, and why would this represent a worse solution than abolishing insurance companies?