EPTmeh, in california democrats are the ultra-wingnut over-politically correct socialize everything party and republicans are a moderate voice of reason.
but republicans elsewhere can be pretty crazy, look at beck or sarah palin for example.
Health Care Bill passed the House - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
meh, in california democrats are the ultra-wingnut over-politically correct socialize everything party and republicans are a moderate voice of reason. but republicans elsewhere can be pretty crazy, look at beck or sarah palin for example. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 07:57 RoyW wrote: "As for your statistics about pre-term births, Canadian population and US population differ in racial distribution people of African origin are nearly twice as likely to have pre-term births." -People of African origin account for maybe 10-15% of population, and maybe 12-17% of births. Even if your figure were true it would in no way address the discrepancy that was well documented. Are you being willfully ignorant or do you honestly not realise how much cognitive dissonance you are employing in order to maintain your 'lack of socialised medicine is not the problem in us' stance? What cognitive dissonance? I'm explaining my position. The racial factor alone won't be sufficient to account for natal deaths. There are hundreds of factors, and unlike NHS, the people of US live under non-uniform laws, with "unequal" market distribution of resources. The health care system in US is not monolithic. What I am decribing is only one of hundreds ways to segment the market and provide a deep analysis. Here's some data from US Health Department about some aggregate statistics: http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3723. I wouldn't use its statistic to create a nationwide plan though. All I have done is provide factors that hint that the large discrepancies in infant mortality is external to the health care system. Does it explain the entire discrepancy? I don't know. I've heard arguments to both conclusions, and I've been able to poke holes in both. All of the studies that I've seen are fundamentally flawed. If I could explain all the factors involve, I could write a doctorate dissertation on it. But based on my study of the health care industry, I'm fairly confident that the answers won't be found on a national level. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
There are hundreds of factors The biggest one might be your health care system. Think about it. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 12 2009 09:02 jalstar wrote: meh, in california democrats are the ultra-wingnut over-politically correct socialize everything party and republicans are a moderate voice of reason. but republicans elsewhere can be pretty crazy, look at beck or sarah palin for example. Glenn Beck is a libertarian and conservative | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 12 2009 09:33 L wrote: The biggest one might be your health care system. Think about it. Health care is the least of our worries. Our president destroyed the dollar and hasn't stopped campaigning for himself or other democrats since he has taken office. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:05 Undisputed- wrote: Health care is the least of our worries. Our president destroyed the dollar and hasn't stopped campaigning for himself or other democrats since he has taken office. LOL you think Obama's the one to blame for the current weak money supply? First of all, he doesn't have any control over monetary policy. Second of all, if you think it's his fault the deficit is so high, let me educate you: ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2009/0610-leonhardt/0610-web-leonhardt.gif) | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On November 12 2009 09:02 jalstar wrote: meh, in california democrats are the ultra-wingnut over-politically correct socialize everything party and republicans are a moderate voice of reason. but republicans elsewhere can be pretty crazy, look at beck or sarah palin for example. There are pretty much nutjobs in both parties. I'm a registered Republican, but I don't agree with a lot of the social Republican agenda (read: the religious conservatives). The reason why is so I can vote in the primaries; that and the fact that the economy is more important to me than anything else. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:11 motbob wrote: LOL you think Obama's the one to blame for the current weak money supply? First of all, he doesn't have any control over monetary policy. Second of all, if you think it's his fault the deficit is so high, let me educate you: + Show Spoiler + Bush was terrible, Obama is terrible. Bush went on a spending spree and Obama is continuing it. I think its funny when people hate bush and love obama when obama = bush for all intensive purposes. So much for that change. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 09:33 L wrote: The biggest one might be your health care system. Think about it. ... I was talking about diagnosing the roots of problem. By that I mean segmenting the marketplace so we can see what exactly is causing costs to be really high and health care results to be comparatively poor. But yes. The biggest one is the health care system. Insurance is an extremely bad model for health care delivery. I think one of the Senators recently said that the insurance industry isn't the problem and that not enough insured people was the problem. I can only shake my head in disbelief. ----- ok enough of this... first of all... people seem to think that I am defending the American system. I am not, but I am deeply against this bill. The worst part of the bill is the individual mandate and go to jail if you don't buy a conforming health insurance plan. I'd take the public option over the individual mandate. The individual mandate is sort of like "privatization" of the neo-liberalism political persuasion (term thanks to some guy name koreansilver - fascism in my own words) in that it's setting up a monopoly of sorts in forcing individuals to buy the goods of a private company or face penalties or jail time. ----- second of all.... if I only had a choice between a pure socialistic health care system and the health care system of the US as it is going right now, I would choose a socialist one. It would be a tough decision, but the future of the US health care system looks really really bleak. ----- third of all.... I will only argue to specific data points on microeconomic scale - decisions by individuals, individual firms, or a group of individuals. I will not argue about nationwide statistics except in generalities. There is too much variation in the variety of people, the geography of land, and nuances in legal system in a country of 300 million and 50 states. I may consider statistics for individual states, but even that is too large of politic to determine what is the best policy on a public basis. ---- that is all | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:28 Undisputed- wrote: Bush was terrible, Obama is terrible. Bush went on a spending spree and Obama is continuing it. I think its funny when people hate bush and love obama when obama = bush for all intensive purposes. So much for that change. ??? Don't equate TARP and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They're two completely different bills that had two completely separate goals. Obama hasn't done any other big "spending sprees", so please elaborate on why you think that TARP and the stimulus is the same. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 12:44 Mystlord wrote: ??? Don't equate TARP and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They're two completely different bills that had two completely separate goals. Obama hasn't done any other big "spending sprees", so please elaborate on why you think that TARP and the stimulus is the same. Remember Bush's first stimulus of 150 billion dollars that didn't do anything!? Yeah me neither. That was so long ago. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 12 2009 12:44 Mystlord wrote: ??? Don't equate TARP and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They're two completely different bills that had two completely separate goals. Obama hasn't done any other big "spending sprees", so please elaborate on why you think that TARP and the stimulus is the same. They both spent a lot of money and both support big government. That is how they are the same. Republicans nowadays are a shadow of what the party used to be. The presidential election was pretty terrible for conservatives if McCain is the best they can come up with. 2012 can't come soon enough. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:10 Undisputed- wrote: They both spent a lot of money and both support big government. That is how they are the same. Republicans nowadays are a shadow of what the party used to be. The presidential election was pretty terrible for conservatives if McCain is the best they can come up with. 2012 can't come soon enough. If the recent NY election is an indicator of the direction the Republican party is trying to go, it's going to be tough for you guys in '12. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:39 TanGeng wrote: ----- second of all.... if I only had a choice between a pure socialistic health care system and the health care system of the US as it is going right now, I would choose a socialist one. It would be a tough decision, but the future of the US health care system looks really really bleak. I think this is a good idea, scrap the system for a government one and then slowly re-introduce free-market incentives, sort of like the voucher idea for education that never got off the ground. A few pages back you said that government shouldn't handle health care or education. I disagree, because poor health care and poor education is better than none at all. The difference between liberals and the rest of us is that liberals seek to drive the free market out of health care and education, while everyone else realizes that no government program will reach market levels of effectiveness. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7300 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:28 Undisputed- wrote: Bush was terrible, Obama is terrible. Bush went on a spending spree and Obama is continuing it. I think its funny when people hate bush and love obama when obama = bush for all intensive purposes. So much for that change. at least obama isnt a social conservative religious nutbag. The republican party is a joke and will forever be a joke as long as they side with social conservatism and religion. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:15 motbob wrote: If the recent NY election is an indicator of the direction the Republican party is trying to go, it's going to be tough for you guys in '12. New York is and always will be blue, it's sad because I live there. Virginia my friend is a better indicator. edit: Don't forget New Jersey either  | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:19 Sadist wrote: at least obama isnt a social conservative religious nutbag. The republican party is a joke and will forever be a joke as long as they side with social conservatism and religion. I'm Independant but would classify myself as a libertarian. I don't believe in religion, am pro choice and am pro gay marriage. The only one I was really pulling for was Ron Paul lol. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:16 jalstar wrote: I think this is a good idea, scrap the system for a government one and then slowly re-introduce free-market incentives, sort of like the voucher idea for education that never got off the ground. A few pages back you said that government shouldn't handle health care or education. I disagree, because poor health care and poor education is better than none at all. The difference between liberals and the rest of us is that liberals seek to drive the free market out of health care and education, while everyone else realizes that no government program will reach market levels of effectiveness. Sounds civil enough. I'll take the bait. 1 - I would argue that once government has total control of a market place, there is no repeatable mechanism in our current political system to get them out - not that the US health care industry currently bears any resemblance to a free market. The US government is only digging its claws in further. 2 - Unfortunately, compared to an individual mandate, socialism is the lesser of two evils. Individual mandates!! Seriously, if US went from total socialism to individual mandates, that would be the definition of neoliberalism privatization that koreasilver was railing on and on about. We're ending up in the same hellish place - yet this is something to cheer about? 3 - Voucher system is what Europe has for its school systems at the primary and secondary level. Their primary and secondary public systems are on average far better than in the US. Schools systems are generally least effective where the teacher's union is strongest and most effective where the parents are most influential. Competition is my highest priority in elementary and secondary schools. I would compromise just for this much because good elementary and secondary schools are about 10x more important than universities. 4 - I am against public funding for college and universities. If you walk around many campuses in the US today, most of those students shouldn't be there. They would be better served honing their work ethic, testing out their entrepreneurial talent, or developing some trade skill. There is also a glut of well educated individuals majoring in studies that have no applications. Talking to my contacts in Europe, they have that problem except people are much much more highly educated. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
2. Agreed. 3. Agreed 4. I think the undergrad system should be closer to the medical school system. The amount of accredited institutions should be limited to a number of about 500, with only the best and brightest getting a bachelor's degree. Public universities in California and the Midwest are pretty damn good, but elsewhere you have a point. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:53 jalstar wrote: 1. Disagreed, pretty much everything was under government control during World War II and we got out fine. 2. Agreed. 3. Agreed 4. I think the undergrad system should be closer to the medical school system. The amount of accredited institutions should be limited to a number of about 500, with only the best and brightest getting a bachelor's degree. Public universities in California and the Midwest are pretty damn good, but elsewhere you have a point. 1. World War II is an interesting case. The regulatory precedents and infrastructure were retained but the people in charge were entrepreneur-friendly. The country was fighting a grueling war and needed to be efficient. But US carried quite a bit of baggage out of that. Maintaining war effort size would have been industrially impossible so instead US got Personal Tax Withholding and the Marshall Plan and eventually NATO, 60+ years in Germany and Japan, and the Military Industrial Complex. There was barely any retreat of the provisions of the New Deal. 4. That's not what I'm arguing at all. The artificial limit on doctors part of the problem with US health care system. The better solution is to let as many students try to become doctors as possible but not subsidize them in anyway. It more important to have on going evaluations of their competence throughout their career. Some students look great before getting into medical school but are busts coming out. Under the current system, when that happens society, will have permanently wasted one of its slots trying to capitalize a failure. Agreed on universities in California and the Midwest being good. But I would have to argue that the top students in virtually every single school are good. I knew the best student that went to a community college, and he was damn bright - brighter than the average Ivy League student. Artificially limiting the exclusive accredited universities to 500 would preclude some of these outlying stars. | ||
| ||
