(Close Window)
Topic: Crash and Burn
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 25, 2017 12:17AM)
What did these amateurs think they were doing yesterday? Did they really think that anyone would believe that they were really trying to improve healthcare for the mass of voters? They had a nice big fat target in Obamacare and made a train wreck. At this rate 2018 is not going to be pretty for the current occupants.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Mar 25, 2017 12:23AM)
Yeah... this'll last..
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 25, 2017 12:49AM)
It's sad. The affordable care act was really... the unaffordable care act. And, these jokers can't come up with something better. It's pure greed and corruption. No one wants to take care of the regular person. Our political leaders are too busy sucking up to pharma.

If people only knew how they were getting fleeced by our taxes. Our taxes should cover every single person to make sure they have life, health, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

We don't have a health care system, we have an illness care system.

Try searching youtube "Eat, Fast, & Live Longer". these are the things we should be teaching people... how to live healthier without spending a penny on some greedy pharmaceutical crook.

The Senate has been bought and sold out.

Shame on most of them.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Mar 25, 2017 01:24AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Yeah... this'll last.. [/quote]

Seconded.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 25, 2017 01:38AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, arthur stead wrote:
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Yeah... this'll last.. [/quote]

Seconded. [/quote]

I think we should play a game until this is inevitably deleted. We should each pick someone from the other side of the spectrum and answer for them. I mean don't we have everyone's answers pretty down by this point?

Sorry Jack but even starting this is pointless even if it stays up.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 25, 2017 01:56AM)
Hopefully this doesn't get deleted. It is IMPORTANT, and it fits in the theme "Not very magical" Hopefully the lords of the café will find it in their heart to hold on to their cahones and stand up to something that is important to every magician out there just trying to make a life.

God Bless.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Mar 25, 2017 02:09AM)
Well... you just brought God into it so it is defiantly on its way out.

It's just a matter of time before someone plays their Trump card...
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 25, 2017 02:30AM)
GOD BLESS! Amen.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Mar 25, 2017 02:33AM)
...and the blessings of the most merciful Allah right back at you.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 25, 2017 03:36AM)
You see, the problem is that they couldn't stand so much winning.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Mar 25, 2017 03:44AM)
When the center can't hold...
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 25, 2017 03:46AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
When the center can't hold... [/quote]

...chaos ensues.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Mar 25, 2017 08:07AM)
The reason this gang couldn't shoot straight on a replacement law is that they don't believe in a replacement. Their heart wasn't in it, except for the repeal part. Plus, the gang's new leader was interested only in a personal "win"--any bill, no matter its content or impact on a nation, because he neither knew anything nor cared anything about the subject. He wanted credit for making a "deal." Any deal. If it happened to bear no resemblance to what he repeatedly swore to deliver to those who made him gang leader, so be it.

What this gang's members really wanted is a return to the "good old days" before the ACA, when insurance companies all could, and all did sell scam insurance to the masses: capped annual benefits, capped lifetime benefits, and the ultimate out--sorry, Charlie, that's a pre-existing condition you've got there. And because all the health insurance companies did this in lockstep (because they could), the masses had no alternatives. The "market" wasn't. Result: giant swaths of the American citizenry unable to afford the premiums for this illusory health insurance or carrying health "insurance" that proved not to be, especially if they became gravely ill (literally).

Turns out, some things don't work when left to unregulated capitalism. Perhaps chief among these is the health of the citizens comprising a nation. We had decades of proof and the mass casualties of it, yet this gang--all of whom were gifted with an inexpensive, private insurance plan--clings to the delusion that everything was just dandy and yearns to return to an egregious, inhumane system (to quote MLK) whose unspoken mantra is, "If they die, they deserve it." To them, their fellow citizens who toil for regular or lower wages and struggle to support their families, and whose back-breaking work helped make them rich, are weaker members of the herd that ought to be sacrificed if the alternative is meaningful regulation of health insurance companies or parting with a few precious pennies of their fortunes.

What happens now is a concerted effort by this gang to kill the ACA through a thousand cuts, starting with the gang leader ordering the IRS not to enforce the modest tax penalty on individual freeloaders who refuse to insure themselves with actual, affordable insurance and thereby drive up everyone's premiums and costs. Oh, wait, he's already done that. So on to step two, then three, then four--until the self-implosion lie they've been selling becomes a half reality and they can crow, "See? Told you so."

Unfettered capitalism can be grand. It can also be a death sentence when shoehorned into places it doesn’t belong and doesn’t work, except for the capitalists.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 25, 2017 09:07AM)
Daaaaaaamn!!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 25, 2017 10:12AM)
In reality one side was more interested in looking like they were doing something than doing it.

Never underestimate them as the gang who couldn't shoot straight. I think they get exactly what they want. Not their boss, but the gang.
Message: Posted by: Stanyon (Mar 25, 2017 10:23AM)
POLITICIANS

Definition: Elected officials, supposedly representing the citizenry, that know what they must do...but can't do it!

JMHO
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Mar 25, 2017 10:32AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
In reality one side was more interested in looking like they were doing something than doing it.

Never underestimate them as the gang who couldn't shoot straight. I think they get exactly what they want. Not their boss, but the gang. [/quote]

You could well be right. Whether through ineptitude or by design (once the gang saw they couldn't get away with straight, overt repeal), they are where they want to be:
taking credit for having "tried" and poised to frustrate and starve the ACA to a de facto repeal.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 25, 2017 10:39AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
In reality one side was more interested in looking like they were doing something than doing it.[/quote]

Could be. Probably worse for them if it had actually passed. I think the blowback from the consequences would have been bad by 2018, and totally messed up by 2020, greatly affecting their re-election plans.

Call me naive, but why is it so hard to actually do something decent for the mass of people vis-a-vis healthcare, and be happy to win votes for that? And this is truly a non-partisan question, because I genuinely ask this about both Parties,being no fan of Obamacare either.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 25, 2017 10:47AM)
The answer would get the thread deleted faster.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Mar 25, 2017 10:55AM)
LOL!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 25, 2017 11:31AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, E.S. Andrews wrote:
The reason this gang couldn't shoot straight...the gang's new leader was interested only in a personal "win"--any bill, no matter its content or impact on a nation, because he neither knew anything nor cared anything about the subject. He wanted credit for making a "deal." Any deal. If it happened to bear no resemblance to what he repeatedly swore to deliver to those who made him gang leader, so be it.


[/quote]

Are you talking about the ACA here, or the proposed replacement?

(The discerning reader will understand the (feigned) confusion).
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 25, 2017 12:21PM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, Stanyon wrote:
POLITICIANS

Definition: Elected officials, supposedly representing the citizenry, that know what they must do...but can't do it!

JMHO [/quote]

Don't use the P word.

You'll set off the alarms.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 25, 2017 12:30PM)
I'm hoping for a Nixon-Goes-To-China moment here: Trump may be the one President who could actually push a Medicare for All plan. It would insure his re-election. He's spoken in favor of such plans many times before. The other party is too cowardly to push it, despite polls showing that Sanders is the most popular politician in the country right now, and Medicare for all has a majority of Americans supporting it.

Well. I can dream, can't I?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 25, 2017 12:43PM)
Always interesting to me as they fade from power and all they have to do is run their mouths and not govern they get more popular.

It is easy to just be critical. Had ol crazy Bernie been in power his numbers would infinitesimal.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 25, 2017 07:38PM)
Punch and Judy.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 25, 2017 09:21PM)
Here's a link pharmaceutical companies don't want you to see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 25, 2017 09:53PM)
There's no money in curing people, or advocating for prevention.

In all fairness though it's the people own fault.
If they're willing to eat garbage and pop pills rather than take responsibility for their own health, then they have no one else to blame.

The vast majority of the chronic illnesses people suffer from are the result of lifestyle choices.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 25, 2017 10:16PM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
There's no money in curing people, or advocating for prevention.

In all fairness though it's the people own fault.
If they're willing to eat garbage and pop pills rather than take responsibility for their own health, then they have no one else to blame.

The vast majority of the chronic illnesses people suffer from are the result of lifestyle choices. [/quote]

Amen. I've lost 30 pounds and my doctor was shocked at the improvement in my lab results. I wonder if he was a bit disappointed he couldn't put me on the lifetime membership to the cholesterol pill as he told me he would "have to" in my previous medical exam.

kj
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 25, 2017 10:23PM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, 1KJ wrote:
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
There's no money in curing people, or advocating for prevention.

In all fairness though it's the people own fault.
If they're willing to eat garbage and pop pills rather than take responsibility for their own health, then they have no one else to blame.

The vast majority of the chronic illnesses people suffer from are the result of lifestyle choices. [/quote]

However, even if I take good care of my health, I still have to have health insurance. I currently spend three times as much as I did 8 years ago. Three times!

I'm not thrilled about the recent failure, and I'm not thrilled about ACA, or rather UCA (Unaffordable Care Act)

kj
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 25, 2017 10:43PM)
What makes me sick (pun intended) is that if we put the 54 [i][b]BILLION[/b][/i] that's going into the already bloated defense budget, we could have health care for all, or close to it.

But we have to be ready in case ISIS crosses the Atlantic in a row boat and attacks New Jersey.

If this once great country does fall then it's the credulous population that will be the cause.

SMDH.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 25, 2017 11:37PM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
What makes me sick (pun intended) is that if we put the 54 [i][b]BILLION[/b][/i] that's going into the already bloated defense budget, we could have health care for all, or close to it.

But we have to be ready in case ISIS crosses the Atlantic in a row boat and attacks New Jersey.

If this once great country does fall then it's the credulous population that will be the cause.

SMDH. [/quote]

I'll be generous and pretend that there are only 300 million people in the country. How, exactly, would you propose to provide healthcare to everyone in the country for about 180 bucks a person?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 26, 2017 12:00AM)
Over a hundred million people are on Medicaid and Medicare already.

It would go a long way, and it's better than buying more freaking bombs.

The point is that there is enough money in the tax base to get it done if the people who pretend to care, actually did.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 26, 2017 12:38AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
What makes me sick (pun intended) is that if we put the 54 [i][b]BILLION[/b][/i] that's going into the already bloated defense budget, we could have health care for all, or close to it.

But we have to be ready in case ISIS crosses the Atlantic in a row boat and attacks New Jersey.

If this once great country does fall then it's the credulous population that will be the cause.

SMDH. [/quote]

I'll be generous and pretend that there are only 300 million people in the country. How, exactly, would you propose to provide healthcare to everyone in the country for about 180 bucks a person? [/quote]
(These figures are all approximate ...)

In 2014, Medicare (federal outlays) cost $505 billion.

http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/

About 29 million Americans are uninsured.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/10/Even-Obamacare-29-Million-People-Are-Uninsured-Here-s-Why

The US population is about 319 million.

So about 9% of $505 billion would be enough to cover healthcare for those presently uninsured.

That would be about $46 billion.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 26, 2017 12:43AM)
From one of the links I posted, looks like total Medicare benefit payments totaled $597 billion in 2014.

So 9% of that would be almost exactly the $54 billion NYCTwister mentioned.

Freaks me out the numbers match so closely.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 26, 2017 12:58AM)
[quote]On Mar 26, 2017, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
What makes me sick (pun intended) is that if we put the 54 [i][b]BILLION[/b][/i] that's going into the already bloated defense budget, we could have health care for all, or close to it.

But we have to be ready in case ISIS crosses the Atlantic in a row boat and attacks New Jersey.

If this once great country does fall then it's the credulous population that will be the cause.

SMDH. [/quote]

I'll be generous and pretend that there are only 300 million people in the country. How, exactly, would you propose to provide healthcare to everyone in the country for about 180 bucks a person? [/quote]
(These figures are all approximate ...)

In 2014, Medicare (federal outlays) cost $505 billion.

http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/

About 29 million Americans are uninsured.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/10/Even-Obamacare-29-Million-People-Are-Uninsured-Here-s-Why

The US population is about 319 million.

So about 9% of $505 billion would be enough to cover healthcare for those presently uninsured.

That would be about $46 billion. [/quote]

Your calculation appears to assume that the entire (covered) US population is covered by Medicare. Approximately 50 million people are covered by Medicare (actually fewer, and presumably fewer still in 2014. So you can't just take 9% of the total US population and prorate it. You have $505 billion covering fewer than 50 million people; in other words, the cost is over $10,000 per person, which means that those 29 million Americans would need not $46 billion, but a bit more than $300 million...call it a factor of around 7x.

Moreover, Medicare doesn't fully cover healthcare expenses for the 17% or so of the population it DOES cover; that's why supplemental plans are purchased on top of Medicare coverage. See, e.g., http://www.marketwatch.com/(S(jpgxu155hzygvlzbebtr5r45))/story/you-might-need-nearly-350000-to-pay-for-health-care-costs-in-retirement-2017-02-02?link=MW_latest_news. ("Medicare generally covers only about 62% of the cost of health-care services for Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 and older, while out-of-pocket spending accounts for 13%.”)

So, $300 million gets you 62% of the way there; that means it takes over $480 billion to get to 100%.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 26, 2017 01:01AM)
[quote]On Mar 26, 2017, balducci wrote:
From one of the links I posted, looks like total Medicare benefit payments totaled $597 billion in 2014.

So 9% of that would be almost exactly the $54 billion NYCTwister mentioned.

Freaks me out the numbers match so closely. [/quote]

Unfortunately, the 29 million uninsured Americans correspond to over half of the people covered by Medicare, so you don't need 9% of the $597 billion..you need about 60% of it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 26, 2017 01:09AM)
You're right, my calculations were off. I blame the Maui Brewing Co. Coconut Porter.

But I would add that the over $10,000 per person is excessive. I'm not saying it is not accurate, I'm saying it is far more than should need to be spent. The figure in Canada is about $3000 (that's in US dollars). (That's for basic universal healthcare, of course some people have private add ons for dental and prescription drugs etc., much as you do in the States.)
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 26, 2017 08:27AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
What makes me sick (pun intended) is that if we put the 54 [i][b]BILLION[/b][/i] that's going into the already bloated defense budget, we could have health care for all, or close to it.

But we have to be ready in case ISIS crosses the Atlantic in a row boat and attacks New Jersey.

If this once great country does fall then it's the credulous population that will be the cause.

SMDH. [/quote]

I'll be generous and pretend that there are only 300 million people in the country. How, exactly, would you propose to provide healthcare to everyone in the country for about 180 bucks a person? [/quote]

Here are the two problems and a proposed solution:

First, We DON'T NEED TO SPEND AS MUCH AS WE DO ON ILLNESS CARE. If our medical, educational, media, and society educated people on how to live a more healthy life, our medical expenses would drop significantly and we wouldn't need X billion dollars per year.

Second, NYCTwister is exactly correct. If we didn't spend trillions of dollars creating enemies so we can spend trillions more fighting enemies, we would be rolling in dough and you and I wouldn't have to spend so much money on illness care premiums, and instead spend a tiny fraction of that money on actual health care.. Let's be honest, the war on ISIS is a war of greed. If there were no oil in the middle east, and a ton of oil in some other part of the world, the terrorist problem would be in that other part of the world.

kj
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 26, 2017 08:46AM)
BTW, I'm sure some here will not "buy" that we could lower medical costs through health education. However, we are mis-informed every day about our health. It's not about trying to control people's behavior, it's about education.

I bet few people are aware of the studies on fasting for example. I bet few people know that when you fast, it has been scientifically proven that your body goes into a "healing" mode, and if you stay on a regimen that includes fasting, even if you maintain your same diet when you are not fasting, your health increases dramatically, and the "healthcare" costs would decrease dramatically. Every single living creature tested has increased their health and their lifespan by around 40% with various forms of fasting. Humans on some of these regimens have lived into their 100s with not a single medication.

Hey, it's your choice, you can live one lifestyle and end up on ten pills a day and feel ill all the time, or you can live a slightly different lifestyle and likely take zero pills and feel healthy. We know which option the "healthcare" industry would rather you take, but ultimately it's your choice.

I can't blame any industry for trying to increase their profits. However, our government and our education system should be focused on protecting and educating people, instead of their focus on fleecing people.

kj
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 26, 2017 08:52AM)
If we are to believe you can lower health care costs through behavior, which you can, then it becomes a personal responsibility issue. One which your neighbor should not be required to pay for. I can't control your behavior.

Or government should be able to control that behavior. Not good is it?
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 26, 2017 08:58AM)
Yes, Danny, it is not good. Our government is already controlling (influencing) our behavior. The problem is they are influencing our behavior for the best interest of pharmaceutical companies, not the best interest of the people.

You are right, you can't control your neighbors behavior, but our government which is supposed to represent US, does exert a tremendous influence over your neighbors behavior. That is the problem.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 26, 2017 10:23AM)
Absolutely.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 26, 2017 11:31AM)
I think that more information is better than less education, though I question the impact you (IKJ) seem to accord it. To the extent thist people's behavior affects their health adversely, the far bigger issue than lack of information is lack of willpower. Look at what people do with the information they DO have. Everyone knows exercise is good, smoking is bad, and spinach is healthier than French Fries. Calorie counts are posted in many restaurants. And as a society, what do we do woth that informations.,
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Mar 26, 2017 12:01PM)
Socialized Medicine for all and accountability for none!

Or...

Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we claim disability!
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Mar 26, 2017 02:44PM)
[quote]On Mar 26, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think that more information is better than less education, though I question the impact you (IKJ) seem to accord it. To the extent thist people's behavior affects their health adversely, the far bigger issue than lack of information is lack of willpower. Look at what people do with the information they DO have. Everyone knows exercise is good, smoking is bad, and spinach is healthier than French Fries. Calorie counts are posted in many restaurants. And as a society, what do we do woth that informations., [/quote]

Ignore it, because it's uncomfortable.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Mar 30, 2017 12:44AM)
[quote]On Mar 26, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think that more information is better than less education, though I question the impact you (IKJ) seem to accord it. To the extent thist people's behavior affects their health adversely, the far bigger issue than lack of information is lack of willpower. Look at what people do with the information they DO have. Everyone knows exercise is good, smoking is bad, and spinach is healthier than French Fries. Calorie counts are posted in many restaurants. And as a society, what do we do woth that informations., [/quote]

I agree with you. I am always amazed when I see people younger than about 70 smoking. I can understand the 70 and older crowd, when they started, it was a different world. We should all know better now.

kj
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 31, 2017 10:02PM)
If we believe in free will or rational choice then "we all know" would suffice - ... maybe. IMHO those notions pertain to possibility more than facts.
A history teacher in middle school started off the year discussing history in terms of habits. There's also economics - choices in context. And of course we learn by example - that which gets elicits punishment is "bad" and that which gets rewarded is "good". Basic behaviorism, no allegory required.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 31, 2017 11:11PM)
Most people seem to think that advertising and propaganda only work for the other guy. Not so. The systems are sophisticated with plenty of research and empirical feedback invested into them and multi-layered. No one is immune.

And if you're thinking that it's not applicable to you...well then you just chose the card with the bent corner.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 1, 2017 01:09AM)
[quote]On Mar 31, 2017, landmark wrote:
Most people seem to think that advertising and propaganda only work for the other guy. Not so. The systems are sophisticated with plenty of research and empirical feedback invested into them and multi-layered. No one is immune.

And if you're thinking that it's not applicable to you...well then you just chose the card with the bent corner. [/quote]


Well, obviously someone's gotten to you.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 1, 2017 08:14AM)
Oh, absolutely. No one is immune. It takes enormous vigilance to see when it's happening, and the most significant influencers are not at all apparent. For those of us of the rational persuasion, probably the hardest part is evaluating facts within a context that is not fully understood.

But let's pick the low-hanging fruit: What brand of toothpaste did you use this morning? How did that come about? What did you drink with dinner last night? Why that brand?

From there we can go on to statements like "my country is the greatest in the world," and with more difficulty,"It's mine, not yours."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2017 08:46AM)
I like how you move to your agenda so gracefully.

Toothpaste, because by dentist said so.

Water with dinner.

I have traveled much of the planet and I prefer where I live. Greatest country is the equivalent of a world's greatest dad t-shirt. Not sure how official any of those rankings actually are.

Then to your inevitable agenda piece. Am I not allowed to own anything?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 1, 2017 09:58AM)
[quote]On Apr 1, 2017, landmark wrote:
Oh, absolutely. No one is immune. It takes enormous vigilance to see when it's happening, and the most significant influencers are not at all apparent. For those of us of the rational persuasion, probably the hardest part is evaluating facts within a context that is not fully understood.

But let's pick the low-hanging fruit: What brand of toothpaste did you use this morning? How did that come about? What did you drink with dinner last night? Why that brand?

From there we can go on to statements like "my country is the greatest in the world," and with more difficulty,"It's mine, not yours." [/quote]

"What is your aim in philosophy?--To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle."--Wittgenstein
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2017 10:18AM)
Assuming that you are not the fly in that analogy of course.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 1, 2017 10:32AM)
[quote]On Apr 1, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
I like how you move to your agenda so gracefully.[/quote]

I'll take that as a compliment :)

[quote]Toothpaste, because by dentist said so.[/quote]

Look into the history of the American Dental Association taking money in return for their endorsements ("Crest has been show to be an effective dentifrice...")

[quote]Water with dinner.[/quote]

Sensible. Will that be Perrier or Evian, sir, with your steak?

[quote]I have traveled much of the planet and I prefer where I live. Greatest country is the equivalent of a world's greatest dad t-shirt. Not sure how official any of those rankings actually are. [/quote]

Experience is a good thing. You'd be amazed by how many who have never gotten off their living room couches who make that judgement.


[quote]Then to your inevitable agenda piece. Am I not allowed to own anything? [/quote]

Of course you are. We live in a particular society at a particular time. But I'm talking about beliefs often held as axiomatic, but which can't possibly be so, since other societies in the past did not always act in the same way. It's enlightening for fish from time to time to look at the water they are swimming in.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2017 10:49AM)
It must be horrible to live life thinking everything is a conspiracy and everyone is against you.

You always complain yet never offer a solution. Or oddly enough your solutions have never in the history of the world worked.

But let me guess. It was just never done the right way.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 1, 2017 11:44AM)
[i]All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players...[/i]


This is true, but unfortunately the actors believe they are the role...

Days full of putting on masks, pulling off masks, and changing masks must be exhausting.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 1, 2017 02:32PM)
[quote]On Apr 1, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
It must be horrible to live life thinking everything is a conspiracy and everyone is against you.

You always complain yet never offer a solution. Or oddly enough your solutions have never in the history of the world worked.

But let me guess. It was just never done the right way. [/quote]

Wrong on all three counts.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2017 03:58PM)
You are CONSTANTLY pushing an agenda of socialist utopia and complain endlessly about capitalism. These are facts not opinions. Your posting history speaks for itself.

Show us where on the scale of the United States socialism has worked ever. You say capitalism has killed people, but socialism and communism have killed hundreds of millions. Not even close in the score card. But you ignore that. You are very myopic. It is sad because you are quite intelligent.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Apr 2, 2017 11:33AM)
Capitalism gave us 2 world wars. Socialism is not a utopia. Lynn
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 2, 2017 11:40AM)
Are there only two possibilities? Unfettered capitalism or Soviet-style socialism?

Really?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 2, 2017 12:19PM)
We've never had unfettered capitalism.

Just sayin.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 2, 2017 12:39PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
We've never had unfettered capitalism.

Just sayin. [/quote]

Perhaps you should define your terms. Who is "we"? And do you mean "capitalism without regulation across the economy, or in smaller sectors"?

Regardless, you point to the oddness of the false dichotomy of "capitalism" vs "socialism" as the onky economic alternatives.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Apr 2, 2017 02:10PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Are there only two possibilities? Unfettered capitalism or Soviet-style socialism?

Really? [/quote]

I agree with you on this that these are not the only possibilities. It's definitely a longer debate; but I don't believe there's any endpoint to how humans create society... ie NO utopia. I certainly don't believe that capitalism is the endpoint or "unknown ideal"; but I do believe in science, which includes how humans interact socially. Lynn
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 2, 2017 02:23PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, lynnef wrote:
Capitalism gave us 2 world wars. Socialism is not a utopia. Lynn [/quote]
Want to explain that?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 2, 2017 04:16PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
We've never had unfettered capitalism.

Just sayin. [/quote]

Perhaps you should define your terms. Who is "we"? And do you mean "capitalism without regulation across the economy, or in smaller sectors"?

Regardless, you point to the oddness of the false dichotomy of "capitalism" vs "socialism" as the onky economic alternatives. [/quote]

"We" as in humanity.

Unfettered as in the judgment of the end user is paramount.

I pointed to no dichotomy.

I was just sayin.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 2, 2017 04:24PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
We've never had unfettered capitalism.

Just sayin. [/quote]

Perhaps you should define your terms. Who is "we"? And do you mean "capitalism without regulation across the economy, or in smaller sectors"?

Regardless, you point to the oddness of the false dichotomy of "capitalism" vs "socialism" as the onky economic alternatives. [/quote]

"We" as in humanity.

Unfettered as in the judgment of the end user is paramount.

I pointed to no dichotomy.

I was just sayin. [/quote]

1. Humans enjoyed unfettered capitalism for millions of years before power structures got in on the action. There are enormous pockets of unfettered capitalism all over the world--much of the drug trade, piracy, human trafficking and whatnot goes on completely outside of the control of governments. It's the entry into the system that causes the market to break.

2. The dichotomy was Danny's and my comment (the one you were "just sayin'" about) was directed at his comment.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 2, 2017 06:17PM)
Should a government not be allowed to keep the strong from preying on the weak? I mean isn't that one of the main sort of functions when you break it down? Is it such a bad thing?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 2, 2017 06:49PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Should a government not be allowed to keep the strong from preying on the weak? [/quote]

Absolutely! I think that you, landmark and I are in complete agreement on that point.

[quote] I mean isn't that one of the main sort of functions when you break it down? Is it such a bad thing? [/quote]

It's a perfect example of why governments are necessary. The devil, of course, is in the details. I'm perfectly fine with socialized:

*public transit
*water treatment
*sewage
*police
*fire response
*health care

All in the interests of protecting the individual from the blunt force of the powerful (including the state). There is room in here for some private sector as well. But I would like to see it regulated.

My guess is that our real disagreement is over the details of the regulation.

Ultimately, though, this is a restriction of capitalism, and it involves some socialism. The art is in the balance.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 2, 2017 07:08PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
We've never had unfettered capitalism.

Just sayin. [/quote]

Perhaps you should define your terms. Who is "we"? And do you mean "capitalism without regulation across the economy, or in smaller sectors"?

Regardless, you point to the oddness of the false dichotomy of "capitalism" vs "socialism" as the onky economic alternatives. [/quote]

"We" as in humanity.

Unfettered as in the judgment of the end user is paramount.

I pointed to no dichotomy.

I was just sayin. [/quote]

1. Humans enjoyed unfettered capitalism for millions of years before power structures got in on the action. There are enormous pockets of unfettered capitalism all over the world--much of the drug trade, piracy, human trafficking and whatnot goes on completely outside of the control of governments. It's the entry into the system that causes the market to break.

2. The dichotomy was Danny's and my comment (the one you were "just sayin'" about) was directed at his comment. [/quote]


It depends what you meant by unfettered capitalism," but I wouldn't apply it to the drug trade, with local monopolies enforced by death penalties. The government isn't the only entity that can fetter things up.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 2, 2017 07:25PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:



It depends what you meant by unfettered capitalism," but I wouldn't apply it to the drug trade, with local monopolies enforced by death penalties. The government isn't the only entity that can fetter things up. [/quote]

Naw. That's the market sorting the winners from the losers. The market's very efficent that way ;)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 2, 2017 08:44PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Should a government not be allowed to keep the strong from preying on the weak? [/quote]

Absolutely! I think that you, landmark and I are in complete agreement on that point.

[quote] I mean isn't that one of the main sort of functions when you break it down? Is it such a bad thing? [/quote]

It's a perfect example of why governments are necessary. The devil, of course, is in the details. I'm perfectly fine with socialized:

*public transit
*water treatment
*sewage
*police
*fire response
*health care

All in the interests of protecting the individual from the blunt force of the powerful (including the state). There is room in here for some private sector as well. But I would like to see it regulated.

My guess is that our real disagreement is over the details of the regulation.

Ultimately, though, this is a restriction of capitalism, and it involves some socialism. The art is in the balance. [/quote]

Yea health care does not fall within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers. But no it does not involve socialism. Yes you want to redefine it to slip it past the goalie, but that does not change that it is not how we are set up in America, or should be.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 2, 2017 09:00PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea health care does not fall within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers. But no it does not involve socialism. Yes you want to redefine it to slip it past the goalie, but that does not change that it is not how we are set up in America, or should be. [/quote]

I'm not talking about America. Nor the "18 enumerated powers". There are principles and issues that transcend your parochial interests.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 2, 2017 09:13PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
... There are principles and issues that transcend your parochial interests. [/quote]
What do you believe are such principles and interests?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 2, 2017 09:43PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea health care does not fall within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers. But no it does not involve socialism. Yes you want to redefine it to slip it past the goalie, but that does not change that it is not how we are set up in America, or should be. [/quote]

I'm not talking about America. Nor the "18 enumerated powers". There are principles and issues that transcend your parochial interests. [/quote]

Shame on Danny, talking about American health care and the appropriate role of government funding and regulation in the thread about...oh, wait. Never mind.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 2, 2017 09:58PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea health care does not fall within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers. But no it does not involve socialism. Yes you want to redefine it to slip it past the goalie, but that does not change that it is not how we are set up in America, or should be. [/quote]

I'm not talking about America. Nor the "18 enumerated powers". There are principles and issues that transcend your parochial interests. [/quote]

Shame on Danny, talking about American health care and the appropriate role of government funding and regulation in the thread about...oh, wait. Never mind. [/quote]

Yes that was my thought.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 3, 2017 01:32PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea health care does not fall within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers. But no it does not involve socialism. Yes you want to redefine it to slip it past the goalie, but that does not change that it is not how we are set up in America, or should be. [/quote]

I'm not talking about America. Nor the "18 enumerated powers". There are principles and issues that transcend your parochial interests. [/quote]

Since this thread is SPECIFICALLY ABOUT those things I didn't feel like it was too much of a stretch to include them in my thinking.

Unless somehow you believe every single post and response here has to be about the entire world as seen by you?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 3, 2017 03:12PM)
Power projection? Parochial or not, we've got working vaporware.

Comic relief: Mallwave was a thing?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 3, 2017 03:48PM)
[quote]On Apr 3, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea health care does not fall within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers. But no it does not involve socialism. Yes you want to redefine it to slip it past the goalie, but that does not change that it is not how we are set up in America, or should be. [/quote]

I'm not talking about America. Nor the "18 enumerated powers". There are principles and issues that transcend your parochial interests. [/quote]

Since this thread is SPECIFICALLY ABOUT those things I didn't feel like it was too much of a stretch to include them in my thinking.

Unless somehow you believe every single post and response here has to be about the entire world as seen by you? [/quote]

Still dealing in alternative facts, Danny?

The OP was not specifically about enumerated powers; it was about incompetent legislators.

[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, landmark wrote:
What did these amateurs think they were doing yesterday? Did they really think that anyone would believe that they were really trying to improve healthcare for the mass of voters? They had a nice big fat target in Obamacare and made a train wreck. At this rate 2018 is not going to be pretty for the current occupants. [/quote]

The talk took a sideways turn (as it usually does) to capitalism vs socialism, with you taking a shot at landmark:

[quote]On Apr 1, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
It must be horrible to live life thinking everything is a conspiracy and everyone is against you.

You always complain yet never offer a solution. Or oddly enough your solutions have never in the history of the world worked.

But let me guess. It was just never done the right way. [/quote]

And
[quote]On Apr 1, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are CONSTANTLY pushing an agenda of socialist utopia and complain endlessly about capitalism. These are facts not opinions. Your posting history speaks for itself.

Show us where on the scale of the United States socialism has worked ever. You say capitalism has killed people, but socialism and communism have killed hundreds of millions. Not even close in the score card. But you ignore that. You are very myopic. It is sad because you are quite intelligent. [/quote]


It was at this point that I made my points. So spare us the sanctimony and falsehood, Danny. If you're going to attack me for straying from the OP, then you'd better disqualify virtually everything you've posted in this thread.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Apr 3, 2017 04:03PM)
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, lynnef wrote:
Capitalism gave us 2 world wars. Socialism is not a utopia. Lynn [/quote]
Want to explain that? [/quote]

1)There were no socialist countries when WW1 began. It was a battle over capitalist empire's abilities to control the capital markets and territories of the world. This obviously can't be explained in a sentence; but Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August helps to understand what caused it. As Bob Dylan sang "the reason for fightin' I never did get." One of Lenin's first acts of socialism was to pull Russia out of world war one. WW2 I believe was also a war of empires (yes, Hitler was a capitalist as well as a fascist). There's been much written about this as well, including how the Treaty of Versaille left Germany with a crushing depression. (Jane Mayer's Dark Money points out how some US capitalists were big money behind Hitler's oil refineries, necessary for his swiftly rising war chest).

2)Socialism is not a utopia as Frederich Engels describes in 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific'. It comes with a birthmark of the previous society. It can either lead to an end to exploitation OR a return to the horrors and worse. A particularly bad example would be Pol Pot,who believed you could just 'even things out' by killing all those who were not proletarian. (indeed, with this logic, the only way to achieve a classless society would be to kill everyone) I don't believe there are any socialist countries today, certainly not China.

I liked Magnus' post because he posed the problem as not so simple. It's not. Lynn
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 3, 2017 08:31PM)
[quote]On Apr 3, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 3, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea health care does not fall within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers. But no it does not involve socialism. Yes you want to redefine it to slip it past the goalie, but that does not change that it is not how we are set up in America, or should be. [/quote]

I'm not talking about America. Nor the "18 enumerated powers". There are principles and issues that transcend your parochial interests. [/quote]

Since this thread is SPECIFICALLY ABOUT those things I didn't feel like it was too much of a stretch to include them in my thinking.

Unless somehow you believe every single post and response here has to be about the entire world as seen by you? [/quote]

Still dealing in alternative facts, Danny?

The OP was not specifically about enumerated powers; it was about incompetent legislators.

[quote]On Mar 25, 2017, landmark wrote:
What did these amateurs think they were doing yesterday? Did they really think that anyone would believe that they were really trying to improve healthcare for the mass of voters? They had a nice big fat target in Obamacare and made a train wreck. At this rate 2018 is not going to be pretty for the current occupants. [/quote]

The talk took a sideways turn (as it usually does) to capitalism vs socialism, with you taking a shot at landmark:

[quote]On Apr 1, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
It must be horrible to live life thinking everything is a conspiracy and everyone is against you.

You always complain yet never offer a solution. Or oddly enough your solutions have never in the history of the world worked.

But let me guess. It was just never done the right way. [/quote]

And
[quote]On Apr 1, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are CONSTANTLY pushing an agenda of socialist utopia and complain endlessly about capitalism. These are facts not opinions. Your posting history speaks for itself.

Show us where on the scale of the United States socialism has worked ever. You say capitalism has killed people, but socialism and communism have killed hundreds of millions. Not even close in the score card. But you ignore that. You are very myopic. It is sad because you are quite intelligent. [/quote]


It was at this point that I made my points. So spare us the sanctimony and falsehood, Danny. If you're going to attack me for straying from the OP, then you'd better disqualify virtually everything you've posted in this thread. [/quote]

Sorry it took a sideways turn when he interjected his usual agenda. OH how you leave that out. Talk about alternative facts.

Still in all those legislators were legislating IN AMERICA, and the thing he was talking about was the health care law. So go ahead tell me how that is dishonest in my response. Can't WAIT for your alternative facts.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 3, 2017 09:14PM)
Good lord Danny. The OP had nothing to do with "18 enumerated powers" and you are now grasping at straws. But have it your way. I would hate for you to think that anything worthy of notice exists outside of America.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 3, 2017 09:34PM)
Sorry to break it to you John but he was talking about legislating in America so yes the 18 enumerated powers matter. Just because you can't keep up in no way means it is not relevant.

You say the devil is in the details. In America one of those details is the Constitution. I know you don't particularly care about it but it matters to some of us. To some it means quite a lot.

How do you expect to have any meaningful discussion if you don't get it down to localities? Do you just want to pontificate pointlessly? Sorry but life is lived in reality and in reality we live in America. That we is landmark and I. So sorry for having a discussion that happens in reality. Your utopia is not something I was addressing.

No grasping at straws.

But just to be clear what do you think the world should just have one great big government?