2k8 election kumite

MrJoshua wrote: Why do we need to move people to cities or encourage mass transit? (I assume thats the transportation systems you speak of) The basis for all of your arguments is that theres a way YOU think I should live my life. I disagree.

yup and it's an opinion. The transportation systems I was talking of encompasses bridge and road improvements and encouragements to businesses to use Rail as heavy transport.

I also believe that YOU are the problem. Your arguments are selfish and greedy with no regard for the other guy or our societies wellbeing as a whole. They stem from a belief in not changing but complaining continually about everything and keeping your pockets full.

Let me explain the living in cities argument alittle more. If high energy prices continue, the market will force people to live closer together to save transportation costs. This is in fact already to happen slowly. Government subsidies need to happen to move this forward quicker. I've seen a bunch of articles recently about how the suburbs could become ghettos, I don't know if I believe it but from the way that transportation costs are starting to increase It is possible.

I don't buy the Suburbs becoming Ghettos bit. I think that you will see more carpooling and commuter busing as they become economically attractive. I live far from my job. I enjoy where I live and I commute to work by rail. I started taking the train at $2.00 a gallon, as that was where it became cost effective for me. Now at $4.00 a gallon the train is more crowded and there are plans to add service. From areas like Pennsylvania and New Jersey that don't have rail service I'm seeing more buses coming into the city. More private companies are running buses in as they can now price themselves high enough to make a profit and still attract people from their cars, As a side effect there seems to be a shortage of equipment so alot of older equipment is being rehabed which is making some more jobs out in the burbs. The cities are already pretty full and many of us that fled will not go back for a variety of reasons. I think you will see more people sharing rides than moving back.

ignorant wrote: I also believe that YOU are the problem. Your arguments are selfish and greedy with no regard for the other guy or our societies wellbeing as a whole.

And this is the basis of the argument. Do you value society over the individual, or the individual over society? I value the individual, particularly this one, over society. Thus I think that policies that benefit the individual (lower taxes, freedom, etc.) are better.

Further, I beleive that we end up with the best possible society, when individuals take action that benefits themselves.

The rational for every argument is selfish. All human actions are selfish. Im just looking for actual material reward from considering myself first instead of a warm fuzzy feeling from proclaiming that I think of others first.
(exaggerated for sake of argument-im not burning babies to stay warm here)

DILYSI Dave wrote:

ignorant wrote: I also believe that YOU are the problem. Your arguments are selfish and greedy with no regard for the other guy or our societies wellbeing as a whole.

And this is the basis of the argument. Do you value society over the individual, or the individual over society? I value the individual, particularly this one, over society. Thus I think that policies that benefit the individual (lower taxes, freedom, etc.) are better. Further, I beleive that we end up with the best possible society, when individuals take action that benefits themselves.

That is fine except when those that you WORK FOR are the ones taking advantage thoes that WORK FOR THEM for their own gain. (the reason I changed jobs:) My bonus is based on my bosses opinion of my work. Not the actual numbers. If he hands out less in bonusses he makes MORE from his bonus. I make record numbers, I get screwed because the dick on the next level has two mortgages and an ex wife milking him dry.

There needs to be more social responsibility from both ends AND in the middle.

You worked in a shitty situation, you changed it. If that doesnt work to your satisfaction, change it some more. Start your own business. Go back to school. Get a degree with night classes. Move to a field with better respect for employees. There are many opportunities to you that will treat you better than any mandate of societal responsibility could.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

ignorant wrote: I also believe that YOU are the problem. Your arguments are selfish and greedy with no regard for the other guy or our societies wellbeing as a whole.

And this is the basis of the argument. Do you value society over the individual, or the individual over society? I value the individual, particularly this one, over society. Thus I think that policies that benefit the individual (lower taxes, freedom, etc.) are better. Further, I beleive that we end up with the best possible society, when individuals take action that benefits themselves.

I do believe what dave thinks works, in a perfect world. Infact it sounds very much like a tradintional anarchist way of thinking, which isn't bad. TR is one of my personal heroes and i buy his strenuous life and pull yourself up by the bootstraps mentality. I also don't think that everyone needs an equal playing field. I do think that it really won't work in practice though. People are afraid of change and really don't like going it alone(for the most part). Without someone to take us down that path, we may never make it and the instant gratification society will prevail.

John Brown wrote: That is fine except when those that you WORK FOR are the ones taking advantage thoes that WORK FOR THEM for their own gain. (the reason I changed jobs:)

You made the choice that benefitted you (change jobs) not the one that benefitted "society" (make sure your boss gets a fat raise). Under the better-for-society plan, since you were really good at your old job, you should have stayed there even though it was the wrong thing for you personally.

Will vote for Obama. Can't pull the R lever in good consicence.

Resigned to the fact that McCain will win, though. :whatthe:

gamby wrote: Resigned to the fact that McCain will win, though. :whatthe:

If he wins.. I'm going to take up elected office and start changing stuff my self.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

John Brown wrote: That is fine except when those that you WORK FOR are the ones taking advantage thoes that WORK FOR THEM for their own gain. (the reason I changed jobs:)

You made the choice that benefitted you (change jobs) not the one that benefitted "society" (make sure your boss gets a fat raise). Under the better-for-society plan, since you were really good at your old job, you should have stayed there even though it was the wrong thing for you personally.

I would argue that the better for society plan would require individuals to seek happiness, so being not happy in a job would not benefit society at all. An unloved and unerappreciated employee is more likely to not contribute great things at work and in society at large.

I favor universal health care because I see it as a financially beneficial system and pro-business. The fact that everyone is included is a secondary benefit. I know that sounds a little odd. The short version is: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We already pay for everyone's healthcare, and throw money down the toilet. What? See, anyone can walk into an emergency room and get treated. Doctors won't turn away someone in need. When someone comes in and can't pay for care, those costs need to get absorbed by someone. ER care costs a lot. Ultimately that cost gets funneled to people paying taxes and paying for insurance. Universal health care would spend money more efficiently by providing preventative care.

When your low-wage worker, without health coverage, doesn't feel well they can go to a doctor and find out what if anything is wrong. A simple physician visit and prescription of drugs costs a lot less than ER care. You worker is off of work for half a day, and can go back to work and continue to support themselves.

If they can't visit a physician, their condition gets worse until they're hospitalized. At that point, we pay for ER care, a heftier course of treatment, and a prolonged hospital stay that uses up beds that could instead go to treat true emergencies like accidents. The patient will be out of work for several days while they're hospitalized, and continue to be unable to work, or working less efficiently, for weeks after, while they recover. Maybe they'll lose their job and go on welfare. Who pays for all of that? Us taxpayers.

So, we can give our low-wage worker $200 to see a doctor as soon as they don't feel well, or $20,000 when they get deathly ill and loose their job.

Granted, not every case of someone feeling ill would devolve into a condition that could get them hospitalized, but my understanding is that other places with universal health care have found that the money in for this system is less than money in for emergency care. And they get money out in the form of increased tax revenue.

Depending on the system, small businesses also benefit, because if they don't have to shoulder health benefits, they can provide workers with other forms of compensation.

Health care is not going to get cheaper by nationalizing it. You are going to get the current inefficiency of the health insurance industry(giant business between you and your health care) stacked on top of the inefficiency of the government (the people who will be collecting your money and giving it to the health insurance companies).
Preventative healthcare saving money is a myth. The bulk of preventative health care only hopes to delay the eventual $20,000 surgery. During that delay you are on expensive medications. You also go to more frequent doctors appointments which cost money. You then end your life in a medical treatment intensive way which is by far not the cheapest way to die. That scenario doesnt take into account the many different medications people take that they dont need, and the ones they take purely to deal with side effects of other medications. Before you call me a callous wacko-consider the actual argument. Im not saying denying healthcare is the right thing to do-Im saying its not cheaper to nationalize healthcare in the way Clinton or Obama plan, and its not cheaper to apply preventative health care.

Watch: It will be the Republicans who get meaningful healthcare reform pushed through. Just as soon as they figure out the current system is killing small businesses.

MrJoshua wrote: Health care is not going to get cheaper by nationalizing it.

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

Dunno. I've got plenty of friends in the UK who are OK with the service they get from the NHS. And if you want better service, private insurance is available(and CHEAP!) to be used at private hospitals.

I think a 31 y.o. guy I know pays $20 a month for private insurance in the UK, cause he likes the convenience.

Forgot to mention. It's not perfect, and it was a laughing stock 20 years ago... but its not too bad at all now. I've been to NHS doctors in the UK to treat a sinus infection I got while travelling, medicene and all No cost to me.

The current healthcare crisis is a direct result of laws passed during the Klinton administration, benifiting greedy insurance companies and trial lawyers at the expense of everyone else: Patients and healthcare providers. Without the current crisis, there would be no need to "do something." Oh, it's coming. Nationalized healthcare is coming because Soros wants it for us. And as Little Mac is in Soros' pocket, you're right, Tim, it will be the R's that push it through.

People need to quit being so sure of themselves about the costs and benefits of a national healthcare system. It could be implemented very porely or work perfectly fine. It could cost more or cost less then it does now. It could be good or bad for small business depending on how its setup. This is all silly speculation untill an actual national healthcare system is setup.

If the country decides to move towards national healthcare i just hope we dont jump into it head first instead of slow implementaion that we can easily back out of if the country decides its not working.

Actually, the roots of the current healthcare crisis go back to the Nixon administration and the creation of HMOs. Not that I'm blaming HMOs for the whole mess, but that's where it started.

HMO's are set up to keep people out of the medical system. There is a "gatekeeper" who's job is to prevent you from coming through the gate.

Near as I can tell, Hillary's new plan is to force money from us at gunpoint and give it to insurance companies. For some strange reason, the insurance companies seem to be behind this plan. Obama's plan is to "Unite, come together and change, for the future." Little Mac's plan is to do what his boss tells him, probably the same as Hillary's plan.

Glenn of the PRC, can you point out one single government program that worked really well and came off according to plan and under budget?

I would actualy like to hear from Mr. Hess about how the Clintons destroyed healthcare. I was under the impression that Bill's healthcare reform plan was soundly defeated.

Dr. Hess wrote: Glenn of the PRC, can you point out one single government program that worked really well and came off according to plan and under budget?

The California Sate University and University of California.

They have sense gone into decline because the government hasn't bothered to do the upkeep.

The United States Postal Service.

The CIA? Oh UNDER budget... my bad.

GlennS wrote: I would actualy like to hear from Mr. Hess about how the Clintons destroyed healthcare. I was under the impression that Bill's healthcare reform plan was soundly defeated.

He said it was during the Clinton administration. I believe the Republicans held a majority in Congress for most of his presidency. But everyone knows that it's the president who really makes and passes all of our laws.

So. Salanis, you're saying that the one example you can come up with has, in fact, failed. I'd say that one doesn't count then. We're talking a program that will take over our lives and the lives of our children until the government colapses under its own weight here.

Glenn, the Klintons put laws in place, poison pills, if you will, that destroyed healthcare. A shining example is the "you're gonna treat everyone that walks through the door regardless of what's wrong with them and do it for free" law. That's now exactly what it was called, but that is exactly how it turned out. When the problems started showing up, did they fix the law? No. Then there's the runaway lottery winning by suing the doctor. They could have stopped that, but it helped out the insurance industry and trial lawyers and damaged medicine so they let it go. That also leads to massively inflated medical costs as physicians practice "defensive medicine," which is ordering about 3X the tests needed just so that some shiney happy person lawyer can't come back on you and say "did you order this test?" when you know damn well it isn't necessary but you do it anyway. So, everyone with a headache gets a MRI. Everyone with a belly ache gets a CT. You order 5 blood tests instead of 1 (or none). And yes, I am an expert on this.

And I haven't gone by Mr. Hess in over 10 years now.

Oh, hey, Postal Service. There's a good one. Yeah, doing great. When I sent in my medical license renewal this year to the state, they strongly suggested that the forms NOT be sent by the U.S. Postal Service, because too many were getting lost. They recommended FedEx or UPS. When a state agency says don't use the USPS, that's a pretty big statement right there.