I could sit here and write a little blurb on how useless Twitter is, but my point would be better made by the fact that 90% of you would think, "Oh, yeah. I signed up for that once. Oh well."
The problem is that you signed up for it to stay in touch with your friends, i.e, a basic way to send out a mass text message saying "Meet me here for coffee!" That's all well and good, until it became social marketing instead of social networking. Now, your entire stream can be a single person posting 20 tweets in a row - would you really stand in front of that person listening to all that if you were having a face-to-face conversation?
The best part of it, though, is that when the geeks who created this project started, they never expected it, so they were as well prepared for it as FEMA in NOLA. First, they didn't have enough server space to handle the amount of traffic, now, they completely lack the man power to not just stop spammers, but also to properly update your account to block them.
Yet, there are those who consider it a glorious use of technology. Give me an example of an instance where a company is given that much importance, does a piss poor job, and still receives praise. Bah, Bah, Bah. Moo, Moo, Moo.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Clunkers
I'm a bit sick of hearing people complain about the Cash for Clunkers program. "The government couldn't even run it right!" Really, because I'm pretty sure you all are saying that because it was so successful, it surprised everyone? "What good was it? It didn't help American car companies!" No, the billions of dollars we gave them months ago did that, this was helping auto dealers, and, is it our fault that American car companies took so long to produce more fuel efficient cars?
You do know that is what the program set out to accomplish, don't you? If you had a "clunker" that got 20 mpg, well, that was not a clunker. When fuel efficiency standards go up, people have to catch up - this pushed them along. The program did this, and did something the car companies couldn't do at the time, helped auto dealers.
Of course, you're going to have people who complain about how much this cost. Well, what if it was a tax rebate instead? "That would have been the way to go!" How does that change what it cost the government? If you think you would have been better off with a $4500 tax rebate, then put it away and pay your taxes with it.
Also, take a second to look at the World, not just you neighborhood, and then think about arguing about the merits of this program. America, with it's selfish political parties and the damage they do through media outlets, seems more and more like the little baby of a 233 yr old country it is, doesn't it?
You do know that is what the program set out to accomplish, don't you? If you had a "clunker" that got 20 mpg, well, that was not a clunker. When fuel efficiency standards go up, people have to catch up - this pushed them along. The program did this, and did something the car companies couldn't do at the time, helped auto dealers.
Of course, you're going to have people who complain about how much this cost. Well, what if it was a tax rebate instead? "That would have been the way to go!" How does that change what it cost the government? If you think you would have been better off with a $4500 tax rebate, then put it away and pay your taxes with it.
Also, take a second to look at the World, not just you neighborhood, and then think about arguing about the merits of this program. America, with it's selfish political parties and the damage they do through media outlets, seems more and more like the little baby of a 233 yr old country it is, doesn't it?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
If and Only If
The Deacon had a thought last night that he would wake up today and write a post on how horribly the game of politics is played these days - on how bills are voted on "if and only if they are Democratic" or "if and only if they are Republican" rather than "if and only if" they benefit the country as a whole.
The example the Deacon was going to use of how the game should be played was the Senior Senator from Massachusetts. When people think, Ted Kennedy, they think "liberal." The man would speak his thoughts, and they were liberal, but where were they put into action? He knew, as seemingly no one else these days does, that you state your position, then work on reaching the best outcome with those who disagree. If there is a Democratic plan, Republicans tell you how bad it is. If there is a Republican plan (remember, a few months ago, they existed), Democrats would tell you how bad it is. Never, "well, that's their plan, but maybe we should do this..."
Politics is not "this or that" (the Deacon refuses to use "black or white" in the present situation), but a combination. An example is the nut jobs at health care town halls for and against reform. While the media shows you only these people, the rest of us sit back and hope that the 535 people we have designated to represent us don't fuck us over to serve themselves.
The Deacon never agreed with all of Senator Kennedy's policies, but he interned for him, and has never regretted it. For any label that you could apply to him, the one that always came out on top was "a great man." If you want to disagree with that, and call him a drunk or a murderer, take a moment to think about the span of your life. There is absolutely no doubt that a part of it was made better at some point in time by Edward Kennedy, no doubt at all. Be a better person, and recognize that, if only for a moment.
The example the Deacon was going to use of how the game should be played was the Senior Senator from Massachusetts. When people think, Ted Kennedy, they think "liberal." The man would speak his thoughts, and they were liberal, but where were they put into action? He knew, as seemingly no one else these days does, that you state your position, then work on reaching the best outcome with those who disagree. If there is a Democratic plan, Republicans tell you how bad it is. If there is a Republican plan (remember, a few months ago, they existed), Democrats would tell you how bad it is. Never, "well, that's their plan, but maybe we should do this..."
Politics is not "this or that" (the Deacon refuses to use "black or white" in the present situation), but a combination. An example is the nut jobs at health care town halls for and against reform. While the media shows you only these people, the rest of us sit back and hope that the 535 people we have designated to represent us don't fuck us over to serve themselves.
The Deacon never agreed with all of Senator Kennedy's policies, but he interned for him, and has never regretted it. For any label that you could apply to him, the one that always came out on top was "a great man." If you want to disagree with that, and call him a drunk or a murderer, take a moment to think about the span of your life. There is absolutely no doubt that a part of it was made better at some point in time by Edward Kennedy, no doubt at all. Be a better person, and recognize that, if only for a moment.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Morality for Survival
There are a couple of things that brought this post about. The Deacon knows someone who's child needs speech therapy. You'd expect a school to offer that, right? Nope. Well, you'd expect insurance to cover it, as speaking is a life necessity, right? Maybe, but not the type of insurance that you pay for, the type you buy to ensure quality of care, no, only state supported insurance would pay for that. So, what's going to happen to that child? Who knows? We'd rather argue about health care than actually care about things this meaningless, why stop and consider an individual plight when we're fighting for our country, for the survival of Capitalism!
Then, last night's Daily Show, where the woman who came up with "Death Panel" after reading the health care "bill" was on to discuss it. Well, if you believe her, watch it and see if she finds it (hint: she doesn't) leafing through the bill (that doesn't actually exist - why doesn't anyone realize THERE IS NO HEALTH CARE BILL RIGHT NOW!)
Both of these things made me think - fewer people = cheaper. Then that made me think about pro-life people wanting welfare mothers to have multiple babies so that we can pay for them until they are 18, and then probably their kids.
When was there a big push on abortion being immoral? Sometime in the early 1900s? Why does that time period ring a bell? When did the New Deal happen, to help more Americans survive, end of the 1930s, early 1940s? Hmm. Why does that time period stick out as well? Oh, yeah, World Wars. What does a country need when it goes to war? Money? Sure. Resources? Sure. Expendable bodies? Exactly.
So, when you think you have a strong moral code because your country has enforced the idea that newborns should be born, that the weak should survive, remember the underlying reason. Expend-ability.
No one should kill your children or grandparents - and, no one actually wants to. That's completely against our survival.
Then, last night's Daily Show, where the woman who came up with "Death Panel" after reading the health care "bill" was on to discuss it. Well, if you believe her, watch it and see if she finds it (hint: she doesn't) leafing through the bill (that doesn't actually exist - why doesn't anyone realize THERE IS NO HEALTH CARE BILL RIGHT NOW!)
Both of these things made me think - fewer people = cheaper. Then that made me think about pro-life people wanting welfare mothers to have multiple babies so that we can pay for them until they are 18, and then probably their kids.
When was there a big push on abortion being immoral? Sometime in the early 1900s? Why does that time period ring a bell? When did the New Deal happen, to help more Americans survive, end of the 1930s, early 1940s? Hmm. Why does that time period stick out as well? Oh, yeah, World Wars. What does a country need when it goes to war? Money? Sure. Resources? Sure. Expendable bodies? Exactly.
So, when you think you have a strong moral code because your country has enforced the idea that newborns should be born, that the weak should survive, remember the underlying reason. Expend-ability.
No one should kill your children or grandparents - and, no one actually wants to. That's completely against our survival.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Health Care, Again
Now, the Deacon thinks health care needs to be reformed for consumers and providers to actually be healthy. How we go about that, well, let's have a discussion. Oh, you lack the intellectual ability to discuss health care? Well, just yell, then. Hell, bring a gun to a discussion. Republicans even think it needs to be reformed, or, say they do, but, well, watch the video that follows and listen to Sen Grassley. Democrats want to reform it, have a majority to pass it, but do everything in their power to try to water reform down to make people happy.
Let's realize one thing about this situation: A majority is trying as hard as it can to cater to a minority - not just the Ds to the Rs, but the Democrats to the few registered Rs left in this country. An aside. The Deacon doesn't mind if you're a Republican, but think about why you are. Did you think, "because of I believe in its ideals?" Please, wake up. The people in power of the Republican party don't have the ideals of the party at heart. Form your own party, and right the direction this ship is taking!
If you watch the rest of this video (seen below, and, at 9:22 in length, I don't expect you to take up that much of your time), you'll see a discussion with the head of the AFL-CIO. That made the Deacon think. What if we do the public option? What if we require union members' families, and union retirees to opt into it? In case you're wondering what would actually happen in that situation, GM would still be GM if we had the balls to do that!
Let's realize one thing about this situation: A majority is trying as hard as it can to cater to a minority - not just the Ds to the Rs, but the Democrats to the few registered Rs left in this country. An aside. The Deacon doesn't mind if you're a Republican, but think about why you are. Did you think, "because of I believe in its ideals?" Please, wake up. The people in power of the Republican party don't have the ideals of the party at heart. Form your own party, and right the direction this ship is taking!
If you watch the rest of this video (seen below, and, at 9:22 in length, I don't expect you to take up that much of your time), you'll see a discussion with the head of the AFL-CIO. That made the Deacon think. What if we do the public option? What if we require union members' families, and union retirees to opt into it? In case you're wondering what would actually happen in that situation, GM would still be GM if we had the balls to do that!
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Conversation on Healthcare Via Facebook
Ok. So what follows is a comment conversation started by the quote below. I haven't changed any part of it. Think it shows why 140 is never enough to get a job done properly?
"Maybe we shouldn't reform health care. I mean, we're not even ranked world-wide in any health category, so why not just give up? We'll just waste billions and billions of dollars on the current system, then start to have our asses handed to us as healthy people from other countries continue to outnumber us."
Josh - Ack! Look to the North! My God! It's..It's the Canadians! Invading! Can't see...blinded by their well-cared for smiles, and the rosy pink of health coloring their cheeks! Even their love of poutine isn't slowing them down!
But seriously, yeah. What are we getting for the billions and billions of dollars we've spent over the years?
Me - And, can someone explain what they think the difference between a mythical "Death Panel" and a private insurance review board is?
Josh - Or the Dialysis Boards that Hospitals used to have that the Government put a stop to. My Grandfather had to pay for hospice care when he decided that more chemo and rads to give him two more months of painful life (at best) was not worth it. His Doctor totally freaked out and tried to badger him into sticking with the treatment. No one would cover his hospice, but he was able to afford it on his own, and passed away quietly and comfortably in the privacy and dignity of his own home, next to his wife of 50 years.
Now they want to give people the chance to have that paid for by Medicare. Big Woop. About time.
Roxie - Josh you have a weird view of Canadians. Dental is not covered in Canada and when its cold season, the ER is packed because the waiting list to see your own PCP is 10 months. Granted my mom had the BEST surgeon do her surgery when she needed it with excellent results.There is good and bad (the good being the large, serious stuff is taken care of re more/well, the bad being routine health care maintenance not so well). Prescriptions also aren't covered in Canada. And my dad, who worked for the Canadian federal GOVERNMENT had private health care (through his job, mind you, with the federal government) on top of the public medical care, which really helped get into seeing your pcp more often and getting more than 3 seconds of time with a doctor.
I LOVE poutine. MMM. Surprised it isn't sin taxed like everything else bad for you up there.
Josh - Well, clearly I was being tongue-in-cheek, Roxanne. But it seems despite its flaws, there aren't massive amounts of Canadian citizens dying in the streets, or being denied access to major health care. Every health care system is flawed to one extent or another, some more than others, but it seems there isn't a major push in any of the "single payer" countries to do away with single payer and go to an American style system where the burden is put onto the backs of the business world.
Josh - Also, something tells me that most Canadians didn't pay $6500 out of pocket costs when their baby son was born. Like I just did. Despite having to pay $1000 a month in insurance because as a small business owner, I can't get squat otherwise. This was apparently my reward for ensuring that my wife got proper pre and neo-natal care during her pregnancy, re More, and delivery. Doctors visits, ultrasounds, proper standard testing, etc. The system as it is now merely encouraged me to "eschew" making sure my baby was born healthy, an action that could have caused him to be much more of a drain on the system later on down the road.
Me - but, why are things packed and people waiting? because they can actually be taken care of?
Brett - Before we jump off the deep end and adopt national healthcare. I would like to hear specifics about the plan. But so far all you are hearing are press junkets and no actual information. All Obama does is wave and smile, never actually says anything of substance.
Roxie - yeah, in fact I am really appreciating having this discussion with people who aren't complete extremists on one side or the other.
you're right - this system is flawed. Why? Because people who don't have health care prefer to spend their extra $100 on an Iphone instead of health insurance ( all of my friends are independent contractors who work in the television industry, my sister and husband included). AND guess what, my sister wanted health care and was denied because she had (HAD) childhood epilepsy.
so just off the bat we need regulation forcing health care companies to accept all applicants at a reasonable cost, and we need to get people to not buy iphones and to buy health insurance instead.
My biggest gripe is that I just don't want to keep signing up for the govt taking my money and then the govt deciding how best to spend it. No. I don't agree that the federal govt knows best how to spend our tax dollars. I worry that so much of it will end up going to "regulators" etc.
Roxie - Josh your story of your son being born is exactly a problem we need to solve. That said, when I was living in Canada making $30,000 a year, my INCOME taxes were slightly over $15000 (there is also 7% fed sales tax and 8% provincial sales tax) so in the long run, we were all paying A LOT for healthcare through our taxes.
Josh - Roxanne, I think my problem is that I've seen too many times (as someone who has worked in medical billing) the greed and life-threatening cupidity of the private insurance companies, and the cost and bureaucratic efficiencies of programs like Medicare. I know. Mindblowing, isn't it, but Medicare puts about 93 cents in beanies for ever dollar taken in.. private insurance spits out about 63 cents for every dollar, because they have to make profit for CEOs and shareholders. I'd rather deal with a Government bureaucrat on health insurance than a private insurance bureaucrat. The former may not care about me personally but is there to serve me, roughly. The latter has orders from up on high that might kill me if it's in their best interest. But I agree..how is the encouragement to stay healthy going to be handled? All carrot, all stick, or both?
Me - You don't hear specifics from Obama because a President (despite what the past 8 yrs told us) doesn't make laws, and, rather than discuss what should or should not be in the bill, or heaven forbid, work together on the bill, isn't it better to distract and focus on the mid-term elections rather than people?
Roxie - And will they allow grievances to be brought against the government if this plan is put in place.?
Josh - Roxanne, I don't mind being taxed more, if I got more for my taxes. It seems for the amount of taxes and money we spend on healthcare in the US (which is far in excess per person than Canada) we should have this problem fixed, or at least in a better state than we do now.
The fact remains that on a per person level, far less money is spent on health care in Canada than in the US, and we have nothing to show for all the extra money.
Josh - That's an excellent question, Roxanne. That's why we don't want to nationalize the entire health care system. But that is not exactly the same as single payer health care. I would prefer a private health care network, and a single payer insurance system run by the Government. If private insurance companies think they can offer services along side that, then let them. Again, 59% of Doctors polled last year supported single payer health care. Even Cato says that the biggest cost of health care after consumption costs is bureaucratic overhead. Medicare is much easier to get money from...I speak from personal experience on this. Even just forcing all the private companies to adhere to one set of forms and protocols would save billions.
Roxie - I swear there are thousands of moderate lefts and rights out there, you just would never know it from the Fox and NBC culture taking over.
Brett - Jeremy, I know he doesn't make policy and laws, but I want someone to come clean with exactly what they want to do about nationalized health care before they vote it in.
We basically have nationalized healthcare in mass and it seems great on the surface, but the hospitals are getting smacked around. Boston Medical center is teetering on going under because of all the freecare they are expected to cover and the state won't. They are in the process of suing the state because of it.
Me - The best is to watch Fox clips from today and from 2006/2007. I believe that might be how you spell hypocrisy now - F-O-X
Josh - My problem with RomneyCare (as a Commonwealth citizen) is that it just said "Okay, everyone HAS to buy insurance. There, problem fixed. My work here is done." Okay, that is an oversimplification of the process, but that's a lot of it seems. I'm almost convinced Romney did what he did in order to make Government health care look bad on purpose. It only made things tougher for small businesses like mine in this state. And yeah, I'm very pleased with how the conversation has been going. And now I'm hungry for more poutine! (Just came back from Montreal this weekend :)
Brett - I hear you, but I just don't trust any of them, they are going to pass a healthcare system that lines their pockets some way.
Me - well, yes, this is the U-S-A! Capitalism or nothing else
Josh - I hear you on that, Brett. My fear is that ObamaCare is just going to line the pockets of the private insurance companies and not really bring real reform. Other folks are afraid it's going to not be business-friendly enough. The one thing people on the left and the right seem to agree on is that they aren't happy with what's being proposed right now (what little has been).
I don't know if there is a way to actually nationalize healthcare in this country. I do believe that all US citizens have a right to healthcare. I think they need to keep it the way it is and state a government run insurance company for anyone that wants it. Hopefully that would keep the private healthcare companies in check. But I think nationalized healthcare is too big a mountain to climb and opens up too many more chances for the regular joe to get screwed.
Josh - Brett, I thought that a strong "Public Option" was an appropriate compromise to Single Payer. But the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Dog Democrats are trying to totally kill that now as well, and without that, where the hell is the reform coming from?
The USPS hasn't put FedEx and UPS out of business. Indeed, more people complain about FedEx service than the Post Office. So why not have a strong Public Option for people who want it? Health insurance costs, forced upon me by the last Governor of my state, are bringing my small, family owned company to the brink of disaster. It's easily my biggest overhead expense, not including payroll.
Brett - Exactly, I feel bad for the small business owners. It's horrible to be forced to buy something that is going to eventually put you out of business. I hate to say it, but maybe if they left the healthcare system alone. I am afraid there might not be an answer.
Josh - Well, getting the costs of health care off the backs of the entire business community, large and small, would be a great step in the right direction, if nothing else *heh*
Brett - Yeah that sounds good but without some business support there will be no way to pay for it. This will be Obama's downfall....
Josh - I'm kind of surprise more big businesses haven't been supporting health care reform to get it off their backs. Some big guys, like the Big 3 Automakers, have gotten sick of having to pay for health insurance for years. It undercuts the global competitiveness. I can tell you Toyota, VW, and Kia don't have these problems in their native country.
John They also don't have the unions that drive up the prices yet they still provide healthcare for their employees. My dad and I have some heated discussion over organized labor. One of the reasons we needed to bail out GM.
Josh - Well, to play the devils advocate, one of the things unions have done is asked for all sorts of health and pension benefits. These are the sorts of things Japan and France and Germany provide as government services funded by taxes, thus freeing up businesses from those costs. So it's not like they don't exist, they've just been shifted off from the back of the biz world there. They also don't spend $600+ billion dollars in military per year either, especially not on wasted "make work" planes and boats the Pentagon is begging NOT to be made.
It's easy to simply demonize organized labor the way some on the Left simply demonize capitalism as a whole. While I agree that some unions have become frighteningly corrupt (look at how Local 25 in Boston drove out the movie industry from MA for a few years). I also still hold to the notion that without the organized movement labor as a whole, we'd still have child labor, seven day work weeks, and lousy work conditions. It's all about balance.
Josh - Okay, to follow up, to be fair, I suspect that at Least some of the European countries may very well spend money on "make work" projects, building things that there isn't a demand for. They may even for this for their own (considerably) smaller militaries.
"Maybe we shouldn't reform health care. I mean, we're not even ranked world-wide in any health category, so why not just give up? We'll just waste billions and billions of dollars on the current system, then start to have our asses handed to us as healthy people from other countries continue to outnumber us."
Josh - Ack! Look to the North! My God! It's..It's the Canadians! Invading! Can't see...blinded by their well-cared for smiles, and the rosy pink of health coloring their cheeks! Even their love of poutine isn't slowing them down!
But seriously, yeah. What are we getting for the billions and billions of dollars we've spent over the years?
Me - And, can someone explain what they think the difference between a mythical "Death Panel" and a private insurance review board is?
Josh - Or the Dialysis Boards that Hospitals used to have that the Government put a stop to. My Grandfather had to pay for hospice care when he decided that more chemo and rads to give him two more months of painful life (at best) was not worth it. His Doctor totally freaked out and tried to badger him into sticking with the treatment. No one would cover his hospice, but he was able to afford it on his own, and passed away quietly and comfortably in the privacy and dignity of his own home, next to his wife of 50 years.
Now they want to give people the chance to have that paid for by Medicare. Big Woop. About time.
Roxie - Josh you have a weird view of Canadians. Dental is not covered in Canada and when its cold season, the ER is packed because the waiting list to see your own PCP is 10 months. Granted my mom had the BEST surgeon do her surgery when she needed it with excellent results.There is good and bad (the good being the large, serious stuff is taken care of re more/well, the bad being routine health care maintenance not so well). Prescriptions also aren't covered in Canada. And my dad, who worked for the Canadian federal GOVERNMENT had private health care (through his job, mind you, with the federal government) on top of the public medical care, which really helped get into seeing your pcp more often and getting more than 3 seconds of time with a doctor.
I LOVE poutine. MMM. Surprised it isn't sin taxed like everything else bad for you up there.
Josh - Well, clearly I was being tongue-in-cheek, Roxanne. But it seems despite its flaws, there aren't massive amounts of Canadian citizens dying in the streets, or being denied access to major health care. Every health care system is flawed to one extent or another, some more than others, but it seems there isn't a major push in any of the "single payer" countries to do away with single payer and go to an American style system where the burden is put onto the backs of the business world.
Josh - Also, something tells me that most Canadians didn't pay $6500 out of pocket costs when their baby son was born. Like I just did. Despite having to pay $1000 a month in insurance because as a small business owner, I can't get squat otherwise. This was apparently my reward for ensuring that my wife got proper pre and neo-natal care during her pregnancy, re More, and delivery. Doctors visits, ultrasounds, proper standard testing, etc. The system as it is now merely encouraged me to "eschew" making sure my baby was born healthy, an action that could have caused him to be much more of a drain on the system later on down the road.
Me - but, why are things packed and people waiting? because they can actually be taken care of?
Brett - Before we jump off the deep end and adopt national healthcare. I would like to hear specifics about the plan. But so far all you are hearing are press junkets and no actual information. All Obama does is wave and smile, never actually says anything of substance.
Roxie - yeah, in fact I am really appreciating having this discussion with people who aren't complete extremists on one side or the other.
you're right - this system is flawed. Why? Because people who don't have health care prefer to spend their extra $100 on an Iphone instead of health insurance ( all of my friends are independent contractors who work in the television industry, my sister and husband included). AND guess what, my sister wanted health care and was denied because she had (HAD) childhood epilepsy.
so just off the bat we need regulation forcing health care companies to accept all applicants at a reasonable cost, and we need to get people to not buy iphones and to buy health insurance instead.
My biggest gripe is that I just don't want to keep signing up for the govt taking my money and then the govt deciding how best to spend it. No. I don't agree that the federal govt knows best how to spend our tax dollars. I worry that so much of it will end up going to "regulators" etc.
Roxie - Josh your story of your son being born is exactly a problem we need to solve. That said, when I was living in Canada making $30,000 a year, my INCOME taxes were slightly over $15000 (there is also 7% fed sales tax and 8% provincial sales tax) so in the long run, we were all paying A LOT for healthcare through our taxes.
Josh - Roxanne, I think my problem is that I've seen too many times (as someone who has worked in medical billing) the greed and life-threatening cupidity of the private insurance companies, and the cost and bureaucratic efficiencies of programs like Medicare. I know. Mindblowing, isn't it, but Medicare puts about 93 cents in beanies for ever dollar taken in.. private insurance spits out about 63 cents for every dollar, because they have to make profit for CEOs and shareholders. I'd rather deal with a Government bureaucrat on health insurance than a private insurance bureaucrat. The former may not care about me personally but is there to serve me, roughly. The latter has orders from up on high that might kill me if it's in their best interest. But I agree..how is the encouragement to stay healthy going to be handled? All carrot, all stick, or both?
Me - You don't hear specifics from Obama because a President (despite what the past 8 yrs told us) doesn't make laws, and, rather than discuss what should or should not be in the bill, or heaven forbid, work together on the bill, isn't it better to distract and focus on the mid-term elections rather than people?
Roxie - And will they allow grievances to be brought against the government if this plan is put in place.?
Josh - Roxanne, I don't mind being taxed more, if I got more for my taxes. It seems for the amount of taxes and money we spend on healthcare in the US (which is far in excess per person than Canada) we should have this problem fixed, or at least in a better state than we do now.
The fact remains that on a per person level, far less money is spent on health care in Canada than in the US, and we have nothing to show for all the extra money.
Josh - That's an excellent question, Roxanne. That's why we don't want to nationalize the entire health care system. But that is not exactly the same as single payer health care. I would prefer a private health care network, and a single payer insurance system run by the Government. If private insurance companies think they can offer services along side that, then let them. Again, 59% of Doctors polled last year supported single payer health care. Even Cato says that the biggest cost of health care after consumption costs is bureaucratic overhead. Medicare is much easier to get money from...I speak from personal experience on this. Even just forcing all the private companies to adhere to one set of forms and protocols would save billions.
Roxie - I swear there are thousands of moderate lefts and rights out there, you just would never know it from the Fox and NBC culture taking over.
Brett - Jeremy, I know he doesn't make policy and laws, but I want someone to come clean with exactly what they want to do about nationalized health care before they vote it in.
We basically have nationalized healthcare in mass and it seems great on the surface, but the hospitals are getting smacked around. Boston Medical center is teetering on going under because of all the freecare they are expected to cover and the state won't. They are in the process of suing the state because of it.
Me - The best is to watch Fox clips from today and from 2006/2007. I believe that might be how you spell hypocrisy now - F-O-X
Josh - My problem with RomneyCare (as a Commonwealth citizen) is that it just said "Okay, everyone HAS to buy insurance. There, problem fixed. My work here is done." Okay, that is an oversimplification of the process, but that's a lot of it seems. I'm almost convinced Romney did what he did in order to make Government health care look bad on purpose. It only made things tougher for small businesses like mine in this state. And yeah, I'm very pleased with how the conversation has been going. And now I'm hungry for more poutine! (Just came back from Montreal this weekend :)
Brett - I hear you, but I just don't trust any of them, they are going to pass a healthcare system that lines their pockets some way.
Me - well, yes, this is the U-S-A! Capitalism or nothing else
Josh - I hear you on that, Brett. My fear is that ObamaCare is just going to line the pockets of the private insurance companies and not really bring real reform. Other folks are afraid it's going to not be business-friendly enough. The one thing people on the left and the right seem to agree on is that they aren't happy with what's being proposed right now (what little has been).
I don't know if there is a way to actually nationalize healthcare in this country. I do believe that all US citizens have a right to healthcare. I think they need to keep it the way it is and state a government run insurance company for anyone that wants it. Hopefully that would keep the private healthcare companies in check. But I think nationalized healthcare is too big a mountain to climb and opens up too many more chances for the regular joe to get screwed.
Josh - Brett, I thought that a strong "Public Option" was an appropriate compromise to Single Payer. But the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Dog Democrats are trying to totally kill that now as well, and without that, where the hell is the reform coming from?
The USPS hasn't put FedEx and UPS out of business. Indeed, more people complain about FedEx service than the Post Office. So why not have a strong Public Option for people who want it? Health insurance costs, forced upon me by the last Governor of my state, are bringing my small, family owned company to the brink of disaster. It's easily my biggest overhead expense, not including payroll.
Brett - Exactly, I feel bad for the small business owners. It's horrible to be forced to buy something that is going to eventually put you out of business. I hate to say it, but maybe if they left the healthcare system alone. I am afraid there might not be an answer.
Josh - Well, getting the costs of health care off the backs of the entire business community, large and small, would be a great step in the right direction, if nothing else *heh*
Brett - Yeah that sounds good but without some business support there will be no way to pay for it. This will be Obama's downfall....
Josh - I'm kind of surprise more big businesses haven't been supporting health care reform to get it off their backs. Some big guys, like the Big 3 Automakers, have gotten sick of having to pay for health insurance for years. It undercuts the global competitiveness. I can tell you Toyota, VW, and Kia don't have these problems in their native country.
John They also don't have the unions that drive up the prices yet they still provide healthcare for their employees. My dad and I have some heated discussion over organized labor. One of the reasons we needed to bail out GM.
Josh - Well, to play the devils advocate, one of the things unions have done is asked for all sorts of health and pension benefits. These are the sorts of things Japan and France and Germany provide as government services funded by taxes, thus freeing up businesses from those costs. So it's not like they don't exist, they've just been shifted off from the back of the biz world there. They also don't spend $600+ billion dollars in military per year either, especially not on wasted "make work" planes and boats the Pentagon is begging NOT to be made.
It's easy to simply demonize organized labor the way some on the Left simply demonize capitalism as a whole. While I agree that some unions have become frighteningly corrupt (look at how Local 25 in Boston drove out the movie industry from MA for a few years). I also still hold to the notion that without the organized movement labor as a whole, we'd still have child labor, seven day work weeks, and lousy work conditions. It's all about balance.
Josh - Okay, to follow up, to be fair, I suspect that at Least some of the European countries may very well spend money on "make work" projects, building things that there isn't a demand for. They may even for this for their own (considerably) smaller militaries.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Superman, or, the Most Inetersting Man in the World
There are plenty of people out there who think of President Obama as some sort of Superman. Well, the Deacon is sorry, but there's at least one person he doesn't quite match up to, yet. Honestly, can you picture O going to N Korea and doing what Bill Clinton did yesterday? No, he'd be too worried about offending someone along the way, but Bill? Let it roll, Bubba!
Sure, there was probably plenty of work done in the background of this event, but what the man did was akin to a "Most Interesting Man in the World" commercial. He didn't just get the reporters pardoned, he came home with them the same day. Of course, would he be Bill Clinton if he didn't pick up 2 girls to bring home with him? Is there anyone else in the entire world who we could expect this from? No.
Sure, there was probably plenty of work done in the background of this event, but what the man did was akin to a "Most Interesting Man in the World" commercial. He didn't just get the reporters pardoned, he came home with them the same day. Of course, would he be Bill Clinton if he didn't pick up 2 girls to bring home with him? Is there anyone else in the entire world who we could expect this from? No.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Jesus, You People are Sheep
When the Deacon calls you sheep, the meaning is two-fold. 1 - There is no doubt America has fallen under a herd mentality, and, even more pathetic than that, it consists of three herds. 2 - The expression, "pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes."
As a diabetic, the health care proposal would most likely benefit the Deacon, but that's not saying I completely agree with it. I understand we don't even rank in the top 5 in any world-wide health category, and that, over a shorter time period than anyone will tell you, a public health care system will be cheaper than Medicare and Medicaid. Is it going to help people? There is absolutely no doubt. Should it be forced on people?
Now, here is the thing. Health care has been discussed since Teddy K's "cradle to grave" speech in the late 70s, so, there's been plenty of warning that this was on it's way, but, it is not too hard to make you all think this is not the case, that it is indeed being shoved down your throats. So, what's the D response to that? Delay the vote until after the recess. Here is where the wool has been pulled over your eyes.
Let me say first, that this health care plan in not fucking evil. Hey, if you think it is, move. Oh, right, every other country has a similar plan already.
A couple days after Harry Reid says the vote will be delayed, the President gives a prime time press conference pushing the issue. What? You don't remember? Of course you don't, the only thing you know about that press conference was that he said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" (uh, everyone in that situation acted like a complete idiot). At this point, do you know that health care was supposed to be up for a vote? Maybe? Well, Obama is not even qualified to be President based on his birth certificate. Oh, that only distracted you for a few days because, while interesting, you're pretty sure it's false. Now, what was that about health care failing? WHAT!?! THEY WANT TO RAISE MY TAXES!!!!!!!
By the time you and the pundits get over that, the Senate will be in recess. The Rs, in all their intellectually glory, let it be known they were going to try and destroy Obama with this Health Care thing. Uh, way to go with that subtlety. When you are playing against Axelrod, it's already unfair to you, but then, they throw in Begala, Carville, and Rahmbo, and you have absolutely no answer.
So, folks, you do not even remember that Health Care was supposed to be reformed by now, that it is even the top issue being debated, because the wool was pulled over your eyes.
How can we begin to hold our elected officials to a higher standard when, based on our actions, that standard starts off woefully low?
As a diabetic, the health care proposal would most likely benefit the Deacon, but that's not saying I completely agree with it. I understand we don't even rank in the top 5 in any world-wide health category, and that, over a shorter time period than anyone will tell you, a public health care system will be cheaper than Medicare and Medicaid. Is it going to help people? There is absolutely no doubt. Should it be forced on people?
Now, here is the thing. Health care has been discussed since Teddy K's "cradle to grave" speech in the late 70s, so, there's been plenty of warning that this was on it's way, but, it is not too hard to make you all think this is not the case, that it is indeed being shoved down your throats. So, what's the D response to that? Delay the vote until after the recess. Here is where the wool has been pulled over your eyes.
Let me say first, that this health care plan in not fucking evil. Hey, if you think it is, move. Oh, right, every other country has a similar plan already.
A couple days after Harry Reid says the vote will be delayed, the President gives a prime time press conference pushing the issue. What? You don't remember? Of course you don't, the only thing you know about that press conference was that he said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" (uh, everyone in that situation acted like a complete idiot). At this point, do you know that health care was supposed to be up for a vote? Maybe? Well, Obama is not even qualified to be President based on his birth certificate. Oh, that only distracted you for a few days because, while interesting, you're pretty sure it's false. Now, what was that about health care failing? WHAT!?! THEY WANT TO RAISE MY TAXES!!!!!!!
By the time you and the pundits get over that, the Senate will be in recess. The Rs, in all their intellectually glory, let it be known they were going to try and destroy Obama with this Health Care thing. Uh, way to go with that subtlety. When you are playing against Axelrod, it's already unfair to you, but then, they throw in Begala, Carville, and Rahmbo, and you have absolutely no answer.
So, folks, you do not even remember that Health Care was supposed to be reformed by now, that it is even the top issue being debated, because the wool was pulled over your eyes.
How can we begin to hold our elected officials to a higher standard when, based on our actions, that standard starts off woefully low?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)