And the winner of tonight's Republican debate...

93EXCivic wrote: I like turtle pie.

I think your recipe has a nicer presentation than mine.

oldsaw wrote: Sorry, guys, but both of you (FGC and Jeff) are barking at the wrong moon. If you are claiming that law enforcement, fire protection, education, infrastructure creation and maintenance are what now defines "socialism", well, you're both very adept at lowering the bar.

Well, I certainly disagree with you, but I absolutely support your right to do it!

tuna55 wrote: Seriously, if congress worked as well as this thread at hashing out ideas and respecting opinions, this country would be in a far better place.

That's the spirit of compromise I was talking about in my first post on this thread. There's gotta be some "give-and-take" if we're all gonna live together.

madmallard wrote:

Xceler8x wrote:

madmallard wrote: I think we just need to categorise intention to NOT have people rely on these assistance programs and be willing to act on putting things into place so they don't need it.

Should this apply to corporations that currently enjoy tax benefits and government grants? Corporations already earning obscene profits? It riles my cyncism to hear we can't afford to help educate poor children but we can afford to offer tax cuts and grants to well off business entities.

Its immaterial if they are earning obscene profits. I don't think it should apply to tax cuts, because philosophically, they earned that money in the first place, a cut simply allows them to keep more. but I DO think it should apply to subsidies, tax CREDITS, and grants. If a business relies on any of these things to function as a business(beyond lets say a startup time length), then they are a socialist-statist entity or industry that can't survive but for government intervention.

I gotta side with madmallard on this one.

I don't have a problem with any company that earns "obscene" profits. The definition of obscene is as varied as people using the word. It's as pliable as one's definition of liberal or conservative.

The problem is that there are those who feel they are qualified to make that definition. What makes them qualified? And what process was used to determine what "is" and what "is not" obscene? And what should all the evil rich do with their ill-gotten gains? Maybe they should go to jail because aparently it's criminal behaviour to make a profit. Or, maybe they should pay more taxes to the government. You know, the bloated, wasteful system that borrows more money than it collects or even hopes to collect?

One also has to wonder if people know the differencess between profits and profit margins (either gross or net)? Which company is more evil, the one the invests 70 billion to make 80 billion or the one that invests 100 million to make 1 billion?

friedgreencorrado wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Sorry, guys, but both of you (FGC and Jeff) are barking at the wrong moon. If you are claiming that law enforcement, fire protection, education, infrastructure creation and maintenance are what now defines "socialism", well, you're both very adept at lowering the bar.

Well, I certainly disagree with you, but I absolutely support your right to do it!

You're a couple a pages behind, FGC.

We've already established that all the above arguably have legitimate "socialist" traits. It's also true that the application of the term is too often made in haste or with poor choices.

We're still cool.

Holy E36 M3, I find myself in agreement with oldsaw and madmallard. This is the best political thread ever.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Josh wrote: I just wish it weren't taboo in both parties to see the huge mass of educated and skilled unemployed people for what it is: a readily exploitable resource. Construction has been one of the hardest hit industries in the past several years. I can't see what sense there is to give so many people unemployment checks instead of putting them to work building necessary infrastructure at reduced rates. Instead we wait until things like bridges, schools, etc. have to be replaced on an emergency timeline, which jacks up costs and produces the worst results and greatest loss of productivity for the people who need such resources (which, if you think about it, is exactly how our healthcare system operates, but I digress). Why can't government be more responsive to actual conditions? Making the best of a down economy doesn't have to mean creating a perpetuating expenditure, and the response to a good economy doesn't have to be to blow the money as soon as we get it (either in the form of tax cuts or runaway spending). To be prudent with personal finances usually means saving as much as you can when you can afford to, and investing in yourself when you need to, and I can't see why both parties don't even seem to consider this sort of behavior on a large scale. We're basically the country who blows his big bonus check on a new harley and a lifted truck, and then gets stuck flipping burgers a couple years later because he can't afford to go back to school when he gets laid off.

Amen. <--- Kinda likes the idea of a WPA style back to work effort, despite my libertarian tendencies.

I'd sign up for something like that in a heartbeat. I want to work! I don't care if the money comes from a private company, or from the government (and of course, the government would get a slice of the salary back in the form of taxes)..I just want to work for it. This is my society, and I want to contribute to it! Yeah, the first month of living on severance (I've been laid off) was fun, but halfway through month number two, I'm so bored I can't stand myself. One day last week, I started drinking at 4pm, and I wasn't even at the race track. I'm tired of all this sitting around, and it's certainly nibbling at the edges of my sense of self-confidence.

And I think Obama's single biggest mistake is that when he tried to dump a gazillion federal dollars into the economy, he put almost all of it -- not all, but nearly all -- into the hands of bankers and vague vaporware projects like "clean energy" rather than hardcore infrastructure inprovements that would would put bodies to work.

WPA-style spending is expensive, but at least it works. People work. They get money. They spend money. Economy improves.

Instead, we spent a fortune, and hardly any of it made it into the hands of consumers to plough back into the economy.

oldsaw wrote: You're a couple a pages behind, FGC. We've already established that all the above arguably have legitimate "socialist" traits. It's also true that the application of the term is too often made in haste or with poor choices. We're still cool.

Yeah, you're right. I should have read all the way through first. This thread is amazing. So far, I've partially agreed with tuna, you, and (see my reply to Josh/Dave) z31.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Seriously, if congress worked as well as this thread at hashing out ideas and respecting opinions, this country would be in a far better place.

That's the spirit of compromise I was talking about in my first post on this thread. There's gotta be some "give-and-take" if we're all gonna live together.

I happen to agree. If only the people we elected to office would see each other as Americans First and the "other party" second.. even the old term of "loyal opposition" would work better than the black and white world congress and the senate seems to work in

Tim Baxter wrote: And I think Obama's single biggest mistake is that when he tried to dump a gazillion federal dollars into the economy, he put almost all of it -- not all, but nearly all -- into the hands of bankers and vague vaporware projects like "clean energy" rather than hardcore infrastructure inprovements that would would put bodies to work. WPA-style spending is expensive, but at least it works. People work. They get money. They spend money. Economy improves. Instead, we spent a fortune, and hardly any of it made it into the hands of consumers to plough back into the economy.

Agree 100%

That was my big problem with it.

oldsaw wrote: I don't have a problem with any company that earns "obscene" profits. The definition of obscene is as varied as people using the word. It's as pliable as one's definition of liberal or conservative.

Well, let me offer this out as food for thought. No one cares if a company that, say, sells TVs makes a huge profit. Good for them! Good for the economy. We love that.

But imagine this. Imagine that we privatize domestic water. You have to buy it from a for profit company. And say they discover that they can jack up the price because you really need water. They discover that the price that makes them the most money is a price that some can't afford. People start dying of dehydration.

Now, follow me, it's a thought experiment. Don't get all “but why don't they go down to the river...” It's the future. The water in the river is radioactive. That's not the point.

At some point people would say “hey, this is wrong”. They would demand that people have access to clean water. It's a life and death issue. Well, a lot of people feel that way about health care. There are people who are dying because they can't afford treatments that others get. You can argue that's right or wrong, but that's what the profits have to do with it. There are companies withholding access to health care because it is best for their profit line.

So some people think that's wrong and that everyone should have access to health care. That's why so many countries have socialized medicine. We, so far, do not. But many believe we should.

The belief that it is a 'right' to have medical care seems to always ignore that such a thing must be taken away from someone else to be given to them.

A medical good, or a medical service must be confiscated in order to provided it as a 'right' to someone else. Where else is it going to come from?

A bandage maker is forced to provide a bandage to someone, a doctor is forced to spend their life labor treating someone.

Its conscription.

Until people intellectually accept this as the truth, the discussion can't go anywhere. Once they do, then we can have a discussion on wether or not this is a moral thing to do. But refusing to call it what it is only drags everything on.

Conscription? Is a teacher conscripted in the classroom? If a fire truck taken away from a manufacturer and given to a home owner?

I see your point, but you're really pushing it pretty far. If we tax people and provide health care, that health care is paid for with tax money, not taken at gun point. If a company says "hey, we can make money providing health care" then they go into that business. If they don't then they don't. No one is forced to do anything. Doctors get paid in Canada. They're not slave labor.

madmallard wrote: Until people intellectually accept this as the truth, the discussion can't go anywhere. Once they do, then we can have a discussion on wether or not this is a moral thing to do. But refusing to call it what it is only drags everything on.

LOL, "only when people accept my deeply flawed premise can we discuss this topic productively". By this logic, all government services are the result of forced slave labor.

All government is essentially a system for the management of people's rights - every individual's rights are in a natural and unceasing conflict with every other individual's rights, and it's our job to effectively and fairly manage those conflicts - we can't just pretend they don't happen. I'm pretty sure not alone in feeling like, sometimes, a sick person's right to live might trump a pharmaceutical executive's right to drive a new Bentley every year.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

There's a fundamental difference between water and medical treatment though; water is a public good that's available naturally. The only cost of getting water to people is really the delivery, and we don't expect better water tomorrow compared to what we get today.

Medical care is based on technology. A huge portion of the cost of health care goes into research and training (and malpractice insurance, but that probably deserves it's own thread).

So you can design a system of socialized medicine that delivers care to everyone, but unless you also develop and fund massive amounts of research you're essentially killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

You can look at the development of various medical technologies, and compare that to GDP or population and you'll find that the less socialized a countries medical system is the more medical technologies it develops.

I can't find a current chart, but the last time I looked into it (about a decade ago), the US accounting for 80% to 90% of all medical tech developments in the world.

In reply to fromeast2west:

I'm with you, and the water thing, as I said, was a thought exercise. That's all. I'll take your word for the facts above, and say that it all sounds reasonable to me. The take away from that for me is that we need a bit of both. But in my opinion, we're far, far on one side and almost absent on the other. Moving a great big step or five toward Socialism in this case seems the right thing. Maybe that's what Obamacare will turn out to be, but I'm not sure. Feels like a baby step to me. But I'll take the baby step if that's all I can get.

Josh wrote:

madmallard wrote: Until people intellectually accept this as the truth, the discussion can't go anywhere. Once they do, then we can have a discussion on wether or not this is a moral thing to do. But refusing to call it what it is only drags everything on.

LOL, "only when people accept my deeply flawed premise can we discuss this topic productively". By this logic, all government services are the result of forced slave labor. All government is essentially a system for the management of people's rights - every individual's rights are in a natural and unceasing conflict with every other individual's rights, and it's our job to effectively and fairly manage those conflicts - we can't just pretend they don't happen. I'm pretty sure not alone in feeling like, sometimes, a sick person's right to live might trump a pharmaceutical executive's right to drive a new Bentley every year.

The premise isn't flawed in the least, nor have you offered a relevant counterpoint to show its flaw you view. The remark is correctly defining it for what it is. Part of the problem you immediately have with your perspective is comparing it to non-compulsory government services.

And a government is not a system for managing rights, its a system for exerting force, civil or otherwise. A GOOD government (hopefully) is a responsible administrator of rights, but to perform that administration, a government must secure more power for itself to more efficiently exert force. This is regardless of what political ideology is in power, all government's natural inertia is to grow and gain more power for itself.

Once we correctly establish what this is and remove any rosy coloured language intended to ingratiate manufactured sympathy, we can get to the serious business of deciding its role, if any, in our society. But the more we try to romanticise it, the more we have people overlook the complications of all the facets it has to overcome.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to fromeast2west: I'm with you, and the water thing, as I said, was a thought exercise. That's all. I'll take your word for the facts above, and say that it all sounds reasonable to me. The take away from that for me is that we need a bit of both. But in my opinion, we're far, far on one side and almost absent on the other. Moving a great big step or five toward Socialism in this case seems the right thing. Maybe that's what Obamacare will turn out to be, but I'm not sure. Feels like a baby step to me. But I'll take the baby step if that's all I can get.

Unfortunately, we were pitched a step forward, but instead got a step sideways. More government control, but no price reduction. Grrrr....

<--- Just went to the open enrollment meeting where we were hit with a 36% overall increase in premiums, with the employee portion being double what it was last year.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

Well, you could be right. It's not what I'd have chosen. But it's too early to condem it yet. It's not implemented. Can't blame it for your open enrolment this year. It's not like it's been getting cheaper before the law.

bluej wrote:

BARNCA wrote: that college is near where i work..lol thats the only thought i have to add to this...lol

Wha? I spent a lot of time at St. A's growing up in goffstown. Where do you live/work? Also, the college is in Goffstown, not ManchVegas. Media turds.

i live in concord.. and i work at a country club about 15 min from there..

fromeast2west wrote: There's a fundamental difference between water and medical treatment though; water is a public good that's available naturally. The only cost of getting water to people is really the delivery, and we don't expect better water tomorrow compared to what we get today.

Actually, you are almost entirely incorrect on that. In most parts of the world, it takes a lot of treatment to get drinkable water. If you think otherwise, take a trip to Mexico.

Water is a HUGELY contested issue, and most people don't realize it. There is much competition and demand for water of increasingly improved quality. There is a lot of technology and infrastructure that goes into improving, monitoring, and delivering water. We can actually make rivers in the central valley of California run backwards if need be.

Now, there are not the same sorts of advancements in water quality as in medical care, but there has been pretty substantial improvement. Tap water is not 100% pure H2O. Water today is, on average, better than water 50 years ago, and there are many people working to make sure it will be better still in 50 years. Usable water is in finite supply and there are GINORMOUS legal battles on who owns how much of what water from where and how much that water should cost.

madmallard wrote: The belief that it is a 'right' to have medical care seems to always ignore that such a thing must be taken away from someone else to be given to them. A medical good, or a medical service must be confiscated in order to provided it as a 'right' to someone else. Where else is it going to come from?

That seems to presuppose that there is a finite amount of medical care, which doesn't make sense to me.

We can trade a dollar for a certain amount of medical care. We can trade a good or service for a dollar. We can therefore trade pretty much anything, depending on our priorities, for additional medical care. Or for whatever else we prioritize.

There absolutely is a cost to providing medical care, but to suggest that it means that the sacrifice must come in terms of an equal removal of that same service elsewhere is not true.

Am I misunderstanding your assertion? If I'm simply being over-literal, and you're only referring to taxation being the taking-away of something from someone else in order to provide medical care, then you are correct, but this falls under my notion of what we choose to prioritize.

EDIT: Yes, on rereading, I clearly have gone over-literal, but my point stands that it's a matter of our prioritization. I don't think anybody here thinks that we can wave a magic wand and provide medical care without taking the funds to pay for it out of other places. It's not conscription. We have to pay the nice man in the white coat.

madmallard wrote: The premise isn't flawed in the least, nor have you offered a relevant counterpoint to show its flaw you view.

Yes I did. You essentially asserted that government actions are zero-sum - that you can't provide for one without necessarily stealing from another. But that's wrong, because when government works properly, the overall returns for everyone are greater than the costs.

That seems to presuppose that there is a finite amount of medical care, which doesn't make sense to me.

its finitie in the sense that it has to be produced and a given capacity. That threshold is limited in the rate the care can be provided, yes.

.... I don't think *anybody* here thinks that we can wave a magic wand and provide medical care without taking the funds to pay for it out of other places. It's not conscription. We have to pay the nice man in the white coat.

here's the problem. In almost every socialised medicine provider in the world, the government tells the doctor what his service is worth. When socialised medicine is the rule, and not the option, this is a form of conscription of services. The doctor is not free to charge what they see fit for their services, instead the government decides this irrespective of the consideration of that doctor's life work, their livelyhood, their cost of education, or any of the other costs it took this person to reach their level of expertise.

People either are blind to these consequences, or understate the impact this has on other things in medicine.

Becoming a doctor no longer has financial appeal, so studying medicine drops. Fewer doctors means less care to go around.

Its not that i'm saying it a 1:1 game with other government services, I'm saying to be feasible long term, it has to take the form of some type of conscription.

We're now seeing a complication arising from Medicare that directly reflects this. Doctors are refusing to treat patients using Medicare because they either a: have a problem getting claims settled, or b: are getting paid a low-ball amount by the government for the services they performed.

Whats the next step to deal with that? Likely a bill to force medical providers to accept Medicare no matter what, or pay significant tax penalties, has been kicked around already...