On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote: The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists. Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
Well part of the problem is it isn't just freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Ie If I have a $100billion I can buy some newspapers/radio or TV stations/billboards and have them say whatever political message I want. (the editorial boards of all major newspapers endorse candidates)
So why can't 1 million people all give $100,000 each to an organization that does the same thing?
The problem is that speech costs money.
The second biggest problem is that people are influenced by the Amount of speech they hear, not just its content.
Both of those are things that aren't going to change
So the only solution to the money-> political speech is 1. the government bans political speech on media (want to hear the state of the Union address, go to Washington D.C. but you can't tweet about it) or 2. the government only allows 'approved political speech' on media (The incumbents can get their message out, but not the challenger... or only the approved challengers)
Both of those merely means that the government chooses the political speech rather than the corporations/unions/rich individuals.
Now while I don't live in America I think the reason why the system is so corrupt is because the television shows can say whatever the fuck they want. In the UK TV shows are not allowed to have political bias one way or an other as that is where most people get their news, and probably where they would hear about political stuff too.
Well the problem is that effectively means that the political speech from the TV is government controlled instead of money controlled.
The issue is Americans are just as suspicious of government in politics as of money in politics. (after all if government is corruptly "paying" companies to get the companies to "pay" to get government elected, then eliminating the middle man allows even more corruption)
On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote: The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists. Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
Well part of the problem is it isn't just freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Ie If I have a $100billion I can buy some newspapers/radio or TV stations/billboards and have them say whatever political message I want. (the editorial boards of all major newspapers endorse candidates)
So why can't 1 million people all give $100,000 each to an organization that does the same thing?
The problem is that speech costs money.
The second biggest problem is that people are influenced by the Amount of speech they hear, not just its content.
Both of those are things that aren't going to change
So the only solution to the money-> political speech is 1. the government bans political speech on media (want to hear the state of the Union address, go to Washington D.C. but you can't tweet about it) or 2. the government only allows 'approved political speech' on media (The incumbents can get their message out, but not the challenger... or only the approved challengers)
Both of those merely means that the government chooses the political speech rather than the corporations/unions/rich individuals.
Now while I don't live in America I think the reason why the system is so corrupt is because the television shows can say whatever the fuck they want. In the UK TV shows are not allowed to have political bias one way or an other as that is where most people get their news, and probably where they would hear about political stuff too.
Well the problem is that effectively means that the political speech from the TV is government controlled instead of money controlled.
The issue is Americans are just as suspicious of government in politics as of money in politics. (after all if government is corruptly "paying" companies to get the companies to "pay" to get government elected, then eliminating the middle man allows even more corruption)
But it isn't controlled by the government... absolutely NO bias whatsoever, you must remain impartial in what you show. I mean people would be quick to say "OH FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM" but quite frankly most people are too stupid to truly be influenced by the TV...
It's like many people in Scotland I ask them if they want us to go independent and they say "yes" then I ask them "why" and they say "uuuuuuuuuuummm, eeeeeeeeerrr I don't know." if the TV was able to show 100% that England are scum and that Scotland should go independent then of course these people would be influenced a lot by what is on the TV, but because it remains impartial and doesn't simply show one side of an argument it means that not everyone gets fully influenced by it because they don't really care to go and do some research.
It was Winston Churchill that said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "
Being dutch I felt the urge to respond (althought I hope most of you realize he's full of shit):
- We don't wear 'do not euthanize me' bracelets, they do not exist. - Every single euthanization is at the request of the patient, noone is euthanized involuntarily or forced to. In fact, euthanasia is only an option for those who are in what is called 'endless suffering', which is quite a high standard to meet. You cannot elect to kill yourself without grounds, and all requests are evaluated by multiple physicians. - Euthanasia is not 10% of all deaths. It concerns 2,500 people a year, which is less then 2% of deaths. - Noone is actually going to other countries for healthcare to escape getting killed in the hospital. The people going for treatment to other countries go to, for example, Turkey or Thailand, for plastic surgery.
Euthanasia is a right and a personal choice over here, as it should be. Maybe Santorum could get his head out of his ass and actually read up on our system, it is actually pretty good.
On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote: The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists. Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
Well part of the problem is it isn't just freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Ie If I have a $100billion I can buy some newspapers/radio or TV stations/billboards and have them say whatever political message I want. (the editorial boards of all major newspapers endorse candidates)
So why can't 1 million people all give $100,000 each to an organization that does the same thing?
The problem is that speech costs money.
The second biggest problem is that people are influenced by the Amount of speech they hear, not just its content.
Both of those are things that aren't going to change
So the only solution to the money-> political speech is 1. the government bans political speech on media (want to hear the state of the Union address, go to Washington D.C. but you can't tweet about it) or 2. the government only allows 'approved political speech' on media (The incumbents can get their message out, but not the challenger... or only the approved challengers)
Both of those merely means that the government chooses the political speech rather than the corporations/unions/rich individuals.
Now while I don't live in America I think the reason why the system is so corrupt is because the television shows can say whatever the fuck they want. In the UK TV shows are not allowed to have political bias one way or an other as that is where most people get their news, and probably where they would hear about political stuff too.
Well the problem is that effectively means that the political speech from the TV is government controlled instead of money controlled.
The issue is Americans are just as suspicious of government in politics as of money in politics. (after all if government is corruptly "paying" companies to get the companies to "pay" to get government elected, then eliminating the middle man allows even more corruption)
If the alternative to a slightly biased goverment (because everything/everyone is biased somehow) controlled newschannel is stuff like "Foxnews"... Then i think it's pretty clear which way is "better" .
On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote: The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists. Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
Well part of the problem is it isn't just freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Ie If I have a $100billion I can buy some newspapers/radio or TV stations/billboards and have them say whatever political message I want. (the editorial boards of all major newspapers endorse candidates)
So why can't 1 million people all give $100,000 each to an organization that does the same thing?
The problem is that speech costs money.
The second biggest problem is that people are influenced by the Amount of speech they hear, not just its content.
Both of those are things that aren't going to change
So the only solution to the money-> political speech is 1. the government bans political speech on media (want to hear the state of the Union address, go to Washington D.C. but you can't tweet about it) or 2. the government only allows 'approved political speech' on media (The incumbents can get their message out, but not the challenger... or only the approved challengers)
Both of those merely means that the government chooses the political speech rather than the corporations/unions/rich individuals.
Now while I don't live in America I think the reason why the system is so corrupt is because the television shows can say whatever the fuck they want. In the UK TV shows are not allowed to have political bias one way or an other as that is where most people get their news, and probably where they would hear about political stuff too.
Nex, aside from screaming like a child, a very popular strategy in American mass media is to ignore the issues don't fit their agenda or the ones they think are too tricky for them to twist. America is not the only country that sweeps things under the rug. Off the top of my head, China comes to mind and perhaps the UK is not as clean as you like to think. So I don't believe restricting the media to impartialness will actually improve anything. The bias will always be there; whether they are vocal or passive about it.
On February 07 2012 08:12 Krikkitone wrote: The issue is Americans are just as suspicious of government in politics as of money in politics. (after all if government is corruptly "paying" companies to get the companies to "pay" to get government elected, then eliminating the middle man allows even more corruption)
The difference here is that people have guaranteed methods and tools to directly influence what the government does and who is in the government, thus giving them a degree of control over the government, and giving every citizen an equal amount of power by birthright. Whereas in a society controlled by money, a huge majority of people have no means to control or influence what goes on.
Government is not meant to be this alien entity that gets power to do everything "just because", which is what a lot of Americans seems to perceive it as. Government is the people, or more accurately a tool for the people to organize and run the society the way the majority wants to. The reason this is not happening in reality is corruption, aka the money in politics.
On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote: The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists. Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
Well part of the problem is it isn't just freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Ie If I have a $100billion I can buy some newspapers/radio or TV stations/billboards and have them say whatever political message I want. (the editorial boards of all major newspapers endorse candidates)
So why can't 1 million people all give $100,000 each to an organization that does the same thing?
The problem is that speech costs money.
The second biggest problem is that people are influenced by the Amount of speech they hear, not just its content.
Both of those are things that aren't going to change
So the only solution to the money-> political speech is 1. the government bans political speech on media (want to hear the state of the Union address, go to Washington D.C. but you can't tweet about it) or 2. the government only allows 'approved political speech' on media (The incumbents can get their message out, but not the challenger... or only the approved challengers)
Both of those merely means that the government chooses the political speech rather than the corporations/unions/rich individuals.
Now while I don't live in America I think the reason why the system is so corrupt is because the television shows can say whatever the fuck they want. In the UK TV shows are not allowed to have political bias one way or an other as that is where most people get their news, and probably where they would hear about political stuff too.
Well the problem is that effectively means that the political speech from the TV is government controlled instead of money controlled.
The issue is Americans are just as suspicious of government in politics as of money in politics. (after all if government is corruptly "paying" companies to get the companies to "pay" to get government elected, then eliminating the middle man allows even more corruption)
But it isn't controlled by the government... absolutely NO bias whatsoever, you must remain impartial in what you show. I mean people would be quick to say "OH FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM" but quite frankly most people are too stupid to truly be influenced by the TV...
It's like many people in Scotland I ask them if they want us to go independent and they say "yes" then I ask them "why" and they say "uuuuuuuuuuummm, eeeeeeeeerrr I don't know." if the TV was able to show 100% that England are scum and that Scotland should go independent then of course these people would be influenced a lot by what is on the TV, but because it remains impartial and doesn't simply show one side of an argument it means that not everyone gets fully influenced by it because they don't really care to go and do some research.
It was Winston Churchill that said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "
But it isn't controlled by the government... absolutely NO bias whatsoever, you must remain impartial in what you show. I mean people would be quick to say "OH FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM" but quite frankly most people are too stupid to truly be influenced by the TV...
Most media outlets are owned and controlled by NBCuniversal which comcast and general electric split 51/49% respectively. these companies have lobbyists and preferences in politicians. so while the news medias aren't controlled by the government they are controlled by the same people who are powerful enough to influence the government. I think you have it reversed, most people are too stupid to not draw their own conclusions and mainly get their ideals from TV. It's like many people in Scotland I ask them if they want us to go independent and they say "yes" then I ask them "why" and they say "uuuuuuuuuuummm, eeeeeeeeerrr I don't know." if the TV was able to show 100% that England are scum and that Scotland should go independent then of course these people would be influenced a lot by what is on the TV, but because it remains impartial and doesn't simply show one side of an argument it means that not everyone gets fully influenced by it because they don't really care to go and do some research. A really important thing to remember about news outlets is that they print based off of what sells, not what matters. A story about some sort of prejudice against scots from brits would probably sell very well and you could tie in separation of Scotland and anything else you wanted. You aren't going to hear "everything is normal today jim" on the radio, you are going to hear "Jim, dear god man!!! the world is in chaos, read about it on page 4". It was Winston Churchill that said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "
The US is a Federal Republic, not a democracy; GB is a constitutional monarchy. Winston was fairly correct, Democracies never work because of what is called the tyranny of the majority. Imagine if 51% of people in the world were against abortion, would that make them right? depends on your view; In a democracy they would vote and stabbing yourself with a coat hanger would be a federal crime.
On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote: The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists. Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
Well part of the problem is it isn't just freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Ie If I have a $100billion I can buy some newspapers/radio or TV stations/billboards and have them say whatever political message I want. (the editorial boards of all major newspapers endorse candidates)
So why can't 1 million people all give $100,000 each to an organization that does the same thing?
The problem is that speech costs money.
The second biggest problem is that people are influenced by the Amount of speech they hear, not just its content.
Both of those are things that aren't going to change
So the only solution to the money-> political speech is 1. the government bans political speech on media (want to hear the state of the Union address, go to Washington D.C. but you can't tweet about it) or 2. the government only allows 'approved political speech' on media (The incumbents can get their message out, but not the challenger... or only the approved challengers)
Both of those merely means that the government chooses the political speech rather than the corporations/unions/rich individuals.
Now while I don't live in America I think the reason why the system is so corrupt is because the television shows can say whatever the fuck they want. In the UK TV shows are not allowed to have political bias one way or an other as that is where most people get their news, and probably where they would hear about political stuff too.
Well the problem is that effectively means that the political speech from the TV is government controlled instead of money controlled.
The issue is Americans are just as suspicious of government in politics as of money in politics. (after all if government is corruptly "paying" companies to get the companies to "pay" to get government elected, then eliminating the middle man allows even more corruption)
If the alternative to a slightly biased goverment (because everything/everyone is biased somehow) controlled newschannel is stuff like "Foxnews"... Then i think it's pretty clear which way is "better" .
The problem is that it is unbiased as defined by the government and something like "Foxnews" is balanced by things like "MSNBC" etc.
Indeed technology might eliminate the problem (just as it potentially created it with the invention of the printing press) if internet news becomes more common, then everyone will get their news as biased as they like it.
However, the fact is you can always use money to spread a message more widely (celebrity spokesperson, paying a whole lot of ordinary people to talk to others)
Mass media [printing press, TV, radio, large internet sites] does have the problem that it does not move along established relationships (what you hear from your friends/family that you trust) and instead relies more on money to "make the connection".
Government is not meant to be this alien entity that gets power to do everything "just because", which is what a lot of Americans seems to perceive it as. Government is the people, or more accurately a tool for the people to organize and run the society the way the majority wants to. The reason this is not happening in reality is corruption, aka the money in politics.
Government is not "the people" it is 'the majority of people' as someone above said... what do you do when 51% of the population decides abortion is murder. or that eating meat is murder. or when 51% of the people think that the current President should not have to run for reelection. or that 1-10% of the population isn't good for anything but being killed off.
Government, in America, is NOT a tool for the people to organize and run society the way the 'majority' wants to... we designed a government specifically to avoid the majority organizing society the way they want to.
Now if you said that government+corporations+churches+interest organizations+media+schools, etc. is a "tool to organize society" then you would be correct.
Correct me if I am wrong but do most people in here want a Republican candidate as president? or are you just looking at the candidates and debating as to who is the best/most rational?
On February 07 2012 08:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but do most people in here want a Republican candidate as president? or are you just looking at the candidates and debating as to who is the best/most rational?
I was pretty torn once the primarys started going, but now not really. Maybe Ron Paul, but it's probably not gonna be him anyways
On February 07 2012 08:56 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but do most people in here want a Republican candidate as president? or are you just looking at the candidates and debating as to who is the best/most rational?
This is the thread to drop by if you feel like having a good laugh and getting scared shitless at the same time.
On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote: Government is not "the people" it is 'the majority of people' as someone above said... what do you do when 51% of the population decides abortion is murder. or that eating meat is murder. or when 51% of the people think that the current President should not have to run for reelection. or that 1-10% of the population isn't good for anything but being killed off.
If 51% of the people decides this, then abortion IS murder, and eating meat IS murder. Just for the sake of the argument, many countries have additional obstacles to changing the fundamental (constitutional) rules of society just by getting 51% support, such as requiring 2/3 support or a minimum turnout on a referendum to change the constitution for example. These are all band aids and safety nets though, at the end of the day the majority is what really matters.
I can see the problems as well as you do, but fact remains that without a true technocracy there is no other way of enforcing fairness and equality than letting the majority decide on all the issues. And as much as I support the idea of technocracy, even for that to ever happen you would still first need a stable democracy that is capable of dealing with issues like corruption and overbearing private interest to be able have that transition.
At the end of the day, 51% represents the will of the people a lot more than .5% of richest people in the country (following only their own interest) do. You really have no valid excuse not to listen to the majority.
If the majority of people living in a society want to change how that society works, what ethical grounds do you have to deny them the power to do this?
On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote: Government, in America, is NOT a tool for the people to organize and run society the way the 'majority' wants to... we designed a government specifically to avoid the majority organizing society the way they want to.
Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy and the cornerstone of personal freedom, something that most Americans appear to idealize above all else. How long do you think you can push this image before people really see through the flaws of American political system for what it really is?
You should consider the fact that in literally every society, majority ultimately decides its fate. Even in the most authoritarian societies, once the majority has been sufficiently pissed off, they have always taken the matter in their own hands. It seems rather unwise to me to ignore what the majority of people wants.
On February 03 2012 10:37 aksfjh wrote: With the exception of housing, which is widely under debate at this moment, the programs you list do things cheaper than the private sector. Education tuitions rose because state budgets have refused to increase funding based on demand for nearly a decade. Military costs went through the roof because we turned to the private sector to help fight the war, instead of sticking to tradition and conscripting.
My argument is that when private sector is forced to the compete with the government the prices go up disproportionately to the quality.
So all my examples basically on point. I'm talking about costs both private and public. Government drove up the price of education with easy credit, housing with easy credit, medicine with guarantees and subsidies, and military with contracts.
These types of economies don't work, you either need to have the whole thing nationalized or privatized without government incentives, and when you're dealing with a situation of individual customers private sector tends to be better, while for something like the military, you obviously want that fully nationalized, but the point is that when you have the two compete you get basically the worst possible situation.
I might agree with you on this partially. But I would add that private sector tends to do better only if the customer has at least some ability to actually judge the service at least somewhat objectively. Healthcare is one of those where that is not true and consequences of error are often fatal. Education also but for somewhat different reasons.
The first part is definitely true. However you underestimate the effiency of the free market. When its difficult for the consumer to understand how the industry works, they have a need. The market can satisfy that need, and new companies will (probably) specialize in explaining how the health care industry works, and how they minizimze their costs in relation to their needs.
However when government is in involved in the market, consumers tend to feel "safe". Like believing that government will fix their problems, and hence their isn't a strong enough demand for private companies to deliever a product that makes it easy to judge the services of the health care sector.
Operation of healthcare industry is the easier part to explain. The medicine is the hard part. Those meta-companies will be as useless to the consumers as the original ones. And as all private companies in a market where consumer is not able to judge the product even after he used it, they will just be ripping everyone and most successful will be the ones with best PR department that provide least service, but make it look good. It is easily seen in the privatized parts of the healthcare sector all over the world. Of course you can take a hardcore libertarian stance, that the consumers get what they wanted, no matter if they got totally ripped off compared to the "forced choice" of public system. But if you think that displayed preference is always equal to the real preference I do not think we have any common basis to continue without getting into an even bigger tangent.
People complain all the time about healthcare system, so no, people are not complacent, but their complaints are mostly totally wrong and just highlighting my point.
If those meta-companies doesn't work they go bankrupt. Why wouldn't they work? They will do everything in their power to make the market easy to understand and analyze for their consumers, because that is their product. And if they are to make money some people have to buy their product.
Oh they will make money, and people will buy their products, but not because those companies will offer anything worthwhile, but because people are gullible and have extremely limited ability to judge those products. How do you know if you need CT, you ask the company and they will tell you exactly that what will maximize their profit, which is rarely linked to what is necessary to maximize your health benefit. Why can they do so ? Because in areas where products if they are faulty do not leave much space for punishing bad providers by changing preference (you cannot move to another provider if you are dead) and where quality of the product cannot actually be reasonably judged at all by the customer, because even unsuccessful treatment might be the best possible product, how do you leave market forces any leverage to work. Market forces will work as they always do to maximize "market efficiency", but unlike in many other areas that goal is not at all aligned with the goal of providing good medical care, because the feedback loop from customers to providers is highly unstable and unreliable.
That was what I was saying that if you consider displayed preference as real preference that is the only way you can make the claim that the system works. Which in this case means that when scared patient buys snake oil from a dealer his displayed preference was to buy a snake oil. You can say since he showed preference for snake oil, market works, as it delivered him exactly what he wanted. Of course I would say that his actual preference was to get healthy, but was too stupid, uneducated, desperate, poor and that transformed his actual preference into buying snake oil instead of buying 1 dollar cheaper antibiotics in the store 10m away.
Of course not all people are terminally stupid so the system would not be completely hellish nightmare, but most people are not equipped to make rational decision about most of the medical field, not only because of lack of knowledge but also because of lack of criteria to judge the product in the first place. In the end system would somewhat work, but would be completely inferior to the standard public system in use today. Other things to consider are that moral hazard is much less than in other areas, because of the nature of the offered service. People prefer not to undertake most of the offered services unless they really need to, especially not the most expensive ones.
So what happens when a company displays bad behaviour to their customers to maximise short-term profits? Do you think thats a viable long-term strategy?
And btw the revenues of the "meta-companies" aren't related to whether the consumers are paying the hospitals. (unless they are being paid by the health care companies and thats obv. not a viable long term business model).
And why can't the services be judged? Patients can tell about their experiences (how they were treated). Maybe they do not know if they are getting the correct medicin. But that just creates a demand for the health care instituions to have someone (independed private company) to control that what they are doing is correct. Will that cost them a bit of money. Sure it might, but its probably nessacary. Why? Imagine this:
You are going to have an operation. You have to options: 1) Get an operation at hospital A for 10.000$. You have no information of this hospital. 2) Get an operation at Hospital B for 11.000$. Hospital has great reviews from customers and the independent companies that has reviewed them give them great grades.
What will you choose? This obv. depends on your subjective preferences (obv. the example isn't realistic, as you most likely would have paid by insurance, but the point is still there).
So you might argue, what if he company that is supposed to review them get paid by the Hospital. Obivously they have to hide this for the public. Corruption is a threat in any kind of society. But is the likehood of this happening in the free market higher than in the world controlled by government?
Most likely not. Because on such an important area there could very well be another company that "regulated these "control-companies", and they would use ressources to investigate if this was happening. And if it indeed was happening, the control"-company would lose all its customers pretty quickly. Hence this would be a extremely risky for the control-company.
So you need to remember that the market is aware of all these concerns and they have a solution for them . Maybe the solutions that I represented above aren't the ones the market will choose. I don't know, but the market regulations is much more efficient than the government regulation.
Your scenario about meta-meta-company controlling meta-companies nicely illustrates the failing of your line of thinking. People actually working do not have time to investigate all the information necessary to make a good decision based on the meta- and meta-meta- companies. And since people do not have the time to make proper research (and they don't because in libertopia you would have to make such a research for nearly every one of 10000 aspects of your life) companies will find it much easier to make money by PR and collusion than by providing good service. Lack of informed consumers is the bane of all market working as intended. And informed consumers are not really possible in healthcare.
But I would agree that with people being well informed(unrealistic assumption already) you could using self-regulation achieve what you are describing and maybe even match the utility of public healthcare. Problem is that all those meta- companies and meta-meta-companies you will have such incredible overhead that the market system will have much bigger cost.
Also market is not aware of anything It is an optimization tool with some strengths and some weaknesses.
Only thing consumers need to do is to shop around. They do not need to udnerstand the products they are buying. They just need to read the review by the "meta-companies". Again im not the one having a lack of understanding. The market is actually efficient. When there is a problem the market can fix it. If consumers can not understand X - The market will create a solution. It also does that as long as there is money in it.
Companies that are bad at making solutions do not profit.
Ok, I am stopping as you just showed that you are a "true-believer", no arguing with them. Market will solve everything, of course
On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote: Government is not "the people" it is 'the majority of people' as someone above said... what do you do when 51% of the population decides abortion is murder. or that eating meat is murder. or when 51% of the people think that the current President should not have to run for reelection. or that 1-10% of the population isn't good for anything but being killed off.
If 51% of the people decides this, then abortion IS murder, and eating meat IS murder.
I can see the problems as well as you do, but fact remains that without a true technocracy there is no other way of enforcing fairness and equality than letting the majority decide on all the issues. And as much as I support the idea of technocracy, even for that to ever happen you would still first need a stable democracy that is capable of dealing with issues like corruption and overbearing private interest to be able have that transition.
At the end of the day, 51% represents the will of the people a lot more than .5% of richest people in the country (following only their own interest) do. You really have no valid excuse not to listen to the majority.
Just for the sake of the argument, many countries have additional obstacles to changing the fundamental (constitutional) rules of society just by getting 51% support, such as requiring 2/3 support to change the constitution for example. These are all band aids and safety nets though, at the end of the day the majority is what really matters.
On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote: Government, in America, is NOT a tool for the people to organize and run society the way the 'majority' wants to... we designed a government specifically to avoid the majority organizing society the way they want to.
Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy and the cornerstone of personal freedom, something that most Americans appear to idealize above all else. How long do you think you can push this image before people really see through the flaws of American political system for what it really is?
You should consider the fact that in literally every society, majority ultimately decides its fate. Even in the most authoritarian societies, once the majority has been sufficiently pissed off, they have always taken the matter in their own hands. It seems rather unwise to me to ignore what the majority of people wants.
Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy Majority vote is fundamentally opposed to personal freedom (of course so are all other forms of government, including anarchy)
It is true that if a large enough proportion of the population support something for long enough, then every single government will eventually reorganize society in that way. (eventually someone who believes in that will end up becoming the king/dictator, or enough of the army/guards will rebel)
The point is to have barriers to that happening in ways that would impact personal freedom poorly. 2/3 for amending things that are designed to protect personal freedom Elected legislators, instead of referenda Legislative+Executive branch separate Having 13+ diverse states so that one group rarely got a signifiant amount of power (before the US, the dominant theory was that democracies don't work on larger than city-state scale because of lack of unity)
Indeed, the only reason things like oligarchy, monarchy, or dictatorships are Worse than democracy is that it is more difficult to get 51% of the population to agree on a way to take away your personal freedoms, than it is some small group of people.
I agree that having the speech dominated by money is potentially as bad as having it controlled by government.
The problem is money->speech->political power v. political power->speech->political power Both are problems... the problem is control over speech. What would be best is
justified trust (that a speaker is analyzing the information without hidden, ulterior motives, ie as you would to yourself if you had the time)->speech->political power
However, there exists little in the way of a way of getting 'justified trust' over a short time frame.
It might mean moving to a disclosure society... ie right of privacy=gone (as long as it was equally gone for everyone including the government).
So no one can speak anonymously, and they have to stand behind their speech.
Being dutch I felt the urge to respond (althought I hope most of you realize he's full of shit):
- We don't wear 'do not euthanize me' bracelets, they do not exist. - Every single euthanization is at the request of the patient, noone is euthanized involuntarily or forced to. In fact, euthanasia is only an option for those who are in what is called 'endless suffering', which is quite a high standard to meet. You cannot elect to kill yourself without grounds, and all requests are evaluated by multiple physicians. - Euthanasia is not 10% of all deaths. It concerns 2,500 people a year, which is less then 2% of deaths. - Noone is actually going to other countries for healthcare to escape getting killed in the hospital. The people going for treatment to other countries go to, for example, Turkey or Thailand, for plastic surgery.
Euthanasia is a right and a personal choice over here, as it should be. Maybe Santorum could get his head out of his ass and actually read up on our system, it is actually pretty good.
Certainly an improvement on America, but I think it doesn't go nearly far enough. There shouldn't be any significant criterion for being allowed to undergo euthanasia (or assisted suicide generally). It's absurd that any government thinks they ought to have that much control over our lives.
I don't see how anyone could be pro-choice for body ownership reasons while still having the backwards views about suicide that our culture engenders. But it seems that many do.
- Euthanasia is not 10% of all deaths. It concerns 2,500 people a year, which is less then 2% of deaths.
Is it realy that manny, 2500-2%? Dont see how people can call 2% of all deaths beeing insignificant. 2500 is 4 times the amount of people killed in traffic and 16 times the amount of people wich are murderd. I find it quiet high, alot higher then i expected it to be and it does give reason for some wories.
I am not against the right to euthenasia though not a clear advocate of it either. These figures dont look good tbh.
TotalBalanceSC2 Canada. February 07 2012 08:56. Posts 55
PM Profile Report Quote #
Correct me if I am wrong but do most people in here want a Republican candidate as president? or are you just looking at the candidates and debating as to who is the best/most rational?
Realy couldnt care less, they basicly all the same (republicans and democrats) except for ron paul who has no change. Democrats and republicans follow the same monetary and foreign policy (wich is the only policy of the usa that matters to europe) so thats why for me they all the same, There are differences but they basicly only concern their policy for taxes and euthenasy etc, wich only effects americans. I just like following and discussing the whole circus and everything that comes with it
Looking at posts made last page: do people seriously consider voting for another bush?
On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote: Government is not "the people" it is 'the majority of people' as someone above said... what do you do when 51% of the population decides abortion is murder. or that eating meat is murder. or when 51% of the people think that the current President should not have to run for reelection. or that 1-10% of the population isn't good for anything but being killed off.
If 51% of the people decides this, then abortion IS murder, and eating meat IS murder.
I can see the problems as well as you do, but fact remains that without a true technocracy there is no other way of enforcing fairness and equality than letting the majority decide on all the issues. And as much as I support the idea of technocracy, even for that to ever happen you would still first need a stable democracy that is capable of dealing with issues like corruption and overbearing private interest to be able have that transition.
At the end of the day, 51% represents the will of the people a lot more than .5% of richest people in the country (following only their own interest) do. You really have no valid excuse not to listen to the majority.
Just for the sake of the argument, many countries have additional obstacles to changing the fundamental (constitutional) rules of society just by getting 51% support, such as requiring 2/3 support to change the constitution for example. These are all band aids and safety nets though, at the end of the day the majority is what really matters.
On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote: Government, in America, is NOT a tool for the people to organize and run society the way the 'majority' wants to... we designed a government specifically to avoid the majority organizing society the way they want to.
Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy and the cornerstone of personal freedom, something that most Americans appear to idealize above all else. How long do you think you can push this image before people really see through the flaws of American political system for what it really is?
You should consider the fact that in literally every society, majority ultimately decides its fate. Even in the most authoritarian societies, once the majority has been sufficiently pissed off, they have always taken the matter in their own hands. It seems rather unwise to me to ignore what the majority of people wants.
Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy Majority vote is fundamentally opposed to personal freedom (of course so are all other forms of government, including anarchy)
I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this statement (the latter one).
The way I see it, majority vote ensures majority rule. And the majority of people will never willingly vote to deny themselves their rights and freedom. This is also the only way to ensure the principle of equality - by distributing the "governing" power equally between each and every member of the society by birthright.
On the other hand, the minority interest groups, no matter how they are determined (by money, religion, whatever), will always seek to reinforce their position of power - which will always be a threat to the freedom of the individual outside of the ruling group.
On February 07 2012 09:44 Krikkitone wrote: The point is to have barriers to that happening in ways that would impact personal freedom poorly. 2/3 for amending things that are designed to protect personal freedom Elected legislators, instead of referenda Legislative+Executive branch separate Having 13+ diverse states so that one group rarely got a signifiant amount of power (before the US, the dominant theory was that democracies don't work on larger than city-state scale because of lack of unity)
Yeah, I agree with this. When I say government, I don't mean just the (in America's case) federal government, but every instance and branch of government. I am a big supporter of decentralization of power in general, especially so in democracies.
My only concern is keeping private interest of the minority outside of (any level of) the government. For it to operate as designed, the government must be fully public and transparent.
On February 07 2012 09:44 Krikkitone wrote: The problem is money->speech->political power v. political power->speech->political power Both are problems... the problem is control over speech.
While the former might illustrate the current state of affairs, the latter is logically flawed because without money or other methods of skewing the democratic process, the only way to acquire political power is to promote ideas that appeal to - let's not call it a majority - a LOT of people, and having a lot of people behind you gives you the spotlight and the ability to appeal to more people (speech).
Which is fundamentally the goal of any society, isn't it?
Everything everyone really wants is to have a way of influencing their environment and making it more suitable for them. And there is no exception to this - EVERYONE wants this, it's a fundamental human need. This is why having a society where only a minority of people really matter will never work in the long run (or it will only work as long as it provides a good living standard for everyone, but crack in times of crisis when all the flaws of the system are revealed).
Of course there are practical concerns such as getting people educated and rational enough to be able to make the decisions that really are in their best interest - but once again even for this you need a healthy platform to build this on. Democracy provides the only healthy platform to do so, because it creates political interest to have as many people as possible get the best all-round education possible.
Whereas systems such as corporatism treat education as means of being trained to do a specific job. There is a vested interest in keeping the majority of people, to put it bluntly, as dumb as possible, which makes them susceptible to radical ideologies and various mass control social mechanisms (it's why religion is such a big deal in the US for example). You don't really NEED popular support and you don't need people to actually understand anything, you only want them to be docile, able to work and spend their money.
Being dutch I felt the urge to respond (althought I hope most of you realize he's full of shit):
- We don't wear 'do not euthanize me' bracelets, they do not exist. - Every single euthanization is at the request of the patient, noone is euthanized involuntarily or forced to. In fact, euthanasia is only an option for those who are in what is called 'endless suffering', which is quite a high standard to meet. You cannot elect to kill yourself without grounds, and all requests are evaluated by multiple physicians. - Euthanasia is not 10% of all deaths. It concerns 2,500 people a year, which is less then 2% of deaths. - Noone is actually going to other countries for healthcare to escape getting killed in the hospital. The people going for treatment to other countries go to, for example, Turkey or Thailand, for plastic surgery.
The healthcare debate in my country is even more riddled with blatant misinformation and irrelevant anecdotes than the rest of what passes for political discourse.
I find it kinda funny that Obama and the democrats would choose to antagonize Catholics with this healthcare stuff right at a time when the Catholic Church has made a conscious decision to become more conservative. There are so many "cafeteria Catholics" out there that I don't know whether they'll abandon democrats in droves over this stuff, but it certainly isn't going to help.
EPT
.
It is an optimization tool with some strengths and some weaknesses.
