Just wondering if anybody is in the same boat as i am, i do identify as MTF but politically i fall into the conservative end of the spectrum, i am deeply saddened by their lack of support and sometimes utter resistance to us, but in honesty i believe their economic, environmental, and other various standpoints just make far more sense than the Democrats, also i believe that the democratic politicians are willing to say anything for our votes, and i dont really believe that they truly give a damn about us, just our voting power. If only there were republicans who could show us some support, that would certainly be interesting, a far more poweful libertarian party, in my opinion, could really help out the USA. Reading about health care in socialistic countries, and the long waits everybody faces just to see a doctor, doesnt really make obamacare sound too appealing to me, because in reality, no matter what is on paper in Obamacare, it faces the realitiess of: limited doctors, limited supply chains, and government intrusion. Hearing stories of transgendered people in other countries with government provided health care having to wait YEARS just to get on HRT shows me that government health care is a load of crap.
Hear, Hear!
JamieD has found his soulmate :P!
But yeah, I'm sure there are a few if you look around (but not me, I'm left of communist here :D).
They all lie and neither party is "looking out for us". I do know one party, for the most part, promotes intolerance and hatred. I can't vote for people like that.
It's not "sometimes utter resistance to us", they do NOT like people like us! Can you reference anyone in that party that supports Gay rights or same sex unions? Most of them seem to promote the chick-fil-a agenda.
As far as health care, right now I'm un-insurable because I am TG, not sure how it can get much worse.. I guess if people work someone where that provides health insurance now, good for them but screw everyone else? I'm not sure what the solution is but what we have now is clearly broken for a lot of people.
YMMV but like I said, I can't vote for people who promote intolerance.
Quote from: Ave on September 10, 2012, 08:31:57 PM
JamieD has found his soulmate :P!
But yeah, I'm sure there are a few if you look around (but not me, I'm left of communist here :D).
I do think you mean HER soulmate.
And I am a socialist in my beliefs, but I will vote Democratic.
Ok, I honestly never thought that political parties ever benefited anyone. All that system does is force people to pick a side and be stuck on an issue because they chose a side; basically, they're no longer individuals. I won't go into why exactly universal health care or any other "socialist" policies are good (I honestly feel that communism and socialism are used as bad words to infuriate people, when, if looked at closely, they are both excellent systems if used as they are described, neither being an actual political system, but economic and philosophical).
There is no chance you will agree with everything your party says. Either left or right 100% is complete insanity.
I will now digress from politics, which, honestly, only leads to bickering. Forget your party, be an individual, and just go with what you feel is the most beneficial pathway anywhere in life.
Quote from: Ms. OBrien on September 10, 2012, 08:47:34 PM
I do think you mean HER soulmate.
And I am a socialist in my beliefs, but I will vote Democratic.
I think JamieD doesn't mind whichever? (correct me if I'm wrong?)
His? Her? When one is bigendered it doesn't matter. I take no offense at either.
To achieve lasting advances for the GLBTQ community, we must reach out to those who have not previously been inclined to support us. In each of the major parties there are factions that are extremists, and factions that are reasonable.
The idea is to build bridges rather than walls. To reach a political consensus, or at least, a working majority.
If this election is like the last few, the GLBTQ community will support the liberal candidates with 2/3rds to 3/4ths of their votes. The risk is, of course, being locked out of the discourse if the other side wins.
Very excellent way of saying it Jamie D, build bridges not walls.I think i would like to use that quote sometime :) All in all im more about maximum freedom and limited government,but we will never see that with either of the two big parties. i believe clinging to the old "one man one woman" traditions is backwards, but i also believe that big government is unsustainable and leads to nothing for a nation but mediocrity.
Diana P, thank you. You are both one of a limited number of people that understand communism and socialism are not a government and that they could work.
As far as parties, I despise the concept, dislike the execution, and loathe the corruption. I refuse to label myself under a party (and I hate being coined independent) and choose who I deem fit. Sadly, that's why I don't vote.
I too will make an early exit from this thread. I wouldn't have been the newb to jump in if Diana didn't get me excited.
Democrats will continue to be our activists, but if you are fiscal conservative, there is no reason to be a Republican. Governor Gary Johnson running as the Libertarian candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states and is a self proclaimed fiscal conservative and social liberal, even giving Obama praise on LGBT issues.
Quote from: AngelofthePlainsbig government is unsustainable and leads to nothing for a nation but mediocrity.
This is so true. I believe and that's why I try to consider myself a conservative. Unfortunately, I don't think either of the two parties act as if they believe this so I can't really call either one conservative.
I also believe conservative implies right to privacy and to pursue your personal goals without government interference. I've never understood how this jibes with the gov't telling us what sexual orientation we need to be (at least if we want to marry), or whether we can obtain birth control or reproductive procedures.
So in short, while I like to believe I'm a conservative, I don't find either of the two candidates satisfactory, especially on their commitment to shrink government or adopting conservative (debt free) fiscal behavior.
Two quick thoughts from me on (American) politics:
Neither party is good for America. (I will note that other countries typically have 20-30 parties, and they all have to work together--"coalitions"--in order to pass legislation. America, supposedly the land of diversity and free speech, can only muster up 2?)
"Big government" is not what leads to mediocrity. Empire is what does this. We are an Empire.
DianaP's post is spot-on, imho.
Well all I'll say is this. One side is actively going against us. The other isn't. While I can see that neither is any good, I will certainly side with the one who somewhat actively works for our rights. Just saying. Siding with the side who is full of people who hate us is like shooting yourself and everyone else like you in the foot.
If I vote it will be for Romney, unfortunately if I don't vote (or if I vote for the Libretarian) it is almost like a vote for Obama and there is no way I can do that.
I don't vote single issues, so just because Obama "pretends" to be for LGBT doesn't overshadow his poor economic views and other things.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 11, 2012, 10:11:33 AM
If I vote it will be for Romney, unfortunately if I don't vote (or if I vote for the Libretarian) it is almost like a vote for Obama and there is no way I can do that.
I don't vote single issues, so just because Obama "pretends" to be for LGBT doesn't overshadow his poor economic views and other things.
Obama=faker
Romney being true
Not sure if serious
I generally tell my conservative friends to vote libertarian, while I find their views to be very hard to swallow being a Socialist I think it is better. Mainly because my conservative friends really are libertarians, they do.t want to see the church integrated into the government or massive spending from the government on defense and grants to faith based institutions, but there is a strong faction in the republican party that does.
Of course I do have a few moderate friends who want to call themselves conservatives, Eisenhower republicans perhaps, but after the 1964 convention I think they might as well be "blue dog" democrats, even then I get the feeling that the conservative wing of the democratics has weekend dramatically in the last 10 years.
Despite being unhappy with the CPUSA, I generally follow thier recommended candidates, which these years is usually the democrats for all but a few local elections. So while I am not conservative by any means I can feel the pain of voting for a party I by and large disagree with.
I will only be voting in the presidential election to eek out my tiny voice amongst millions as a protest against the status quo. I have no unreasonable faith that my vote can actually change anything or have any real impact. The two major parties are both maintaining the status quo and there will be no dramatic changes from either of them. Hence, I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. I just can't muster up a sh*t to give whether Obama or Romney wins. They both suck, and mostly in the same ways. Although one good thing I could see from Romney winning is that a lot of liberals will become anti-war again. A lot of the most hardcore war protesters now love all the drones blowing up kids and and occupying and new wars and Gitmo continuing full-stream-ahead now that Bush is gone and Obama's in charge. Ugh.
My problem is that I am a conservative on some issues,liberal on others, and just down right in the middle on others. Very few true moderates left. It's gotten to be far left and far right and it seems so little common sense. (That's what happens when you have lawyers and rich people running the country)
Quote from: SarahM777 on September 12, 2012, 01:03:45 PM
My problem is that I am a conservative on some issues,liberal on others, and just down right in the middle on others. Very few true moderates left. It's gotten to be far left and far right and it seems so little common sense. (That's what happens when you have lawyers and rich people running the country)
^ This. I am financially conservative but socially liberal. There doesn't seem to be anyone on that platform and many seem to just be SOOOO extreme either left or right.
What exactly is a 'conservative' position on the environment? Does it mean that you support radical conservation (as "conservative" by definition would imply)? Does it mean you don't believe (or understand) science? Or does it mean you really, really think that environment protection and enhancement should be an overwhelming concern as Republican President Theodore Roosevelt advocated, and it's importance should be elevated to a cabinet level position like Republican President Richard Nixon did?
Quote from: tekla on September 12, 2012, 06:27:33 PM
What exactly is a 'conservative' position on the environment?
For me, I'd say I'm skeptical about predictions made by scientists. While correlations and data are hard to question, there is an awful lot that scientists predict that is based on assumptions about details that simply cannot be known. History is littered with doomsday predictions by scientists that proved laughable in retrospect.
Quote from: agfrommd on September 12, 2012, 06:34:42 PM
History is littered with doomsday predictions by scientists that proved laughable in retrospect.
Ok, i couldn't resist the curiosity. Like what?
I'm voting for the guy who cares for the poor and not the one who wants to trickle on us..
We need enough people getting a decent pay to support a business to be able to expand
DUHHH
well the republicans have basically taken almost all they can from the middle class so they use perverse logic to entrance the ones who do have a job into voting for them and those voters,, the next time the republicans get in office,,, so yes those people will be the last ones to get screwed,,,,,, butt oh how they will eventually get screwed too
and they think by voting republican they will be taken care of LOL LOL LOL
first they came for the gays and i did nothing then they came for the leftist and i did nothing they they came for the middle class and i did nothing then they came for me (the last ones who vote republican) and i couldn't do a damn thing
Quote from: tekla on September 12, 2012, 06:27:33 PM
What exactly is a 'conservative' position on the environment? Does it mean that you support radical conservation (as "conservative" by definition would imply)? Does it mean you don't believe (or understand) science? Or does it mean you really, really think that environment protection and enhancement should be an overwhelming concern as Republican President Theodore Roosevelt advocated, and it's importance should be elevated to a cabinet level position like Republican President Richard Nixon did?
OH MY GAWD who let TEKLA IN ??? lol .... hey there LTNC and it was good while you were gone .. actually we did miss you.. well some of us did .. ok to be honest we didn't but we don't hate that your back.. ok ok maybe a few do... ok damn it get the heck outta here will ya TEKLA ..
kidding ;D
WELCOME BACK KOTTER
Quote from: DianaP on September 12, 2012, 06:36:33 PM
Ok, i couldn't resist the curiosity. Like what?
The most famous is Malthus' prediction of mass starvation. Early global warming predictions had the seas drying up, snow disappearing, and temperature increasing 11 degrees by 2000. When I was young, the prediction was that by the time we were grown, the air would not be breathable, and people would need to carry oxygen with them if they went outside. A time magazine article in the 1970s predicted that by now, computers could do anything human intelligence could do.
The biggest problem is balance. Too far left or too far right each causes problems. Take paper production. Hemp by far is the better choice,it produces better quality paper produces 4 times as much per acre,does not have to be bleached with Chlorine, but can be whitened by hydrogen peroxide. Then you can take the hemp hurds for paper production and the stalks can be used as clothing. Less energy used to grow it and harvest it then forestry. The only reason it's not grown is because it resembles Marijuana. Does this make sense?
Ethanol production is another good one. Why is it still being done? It costs more in energy to produce it then it yields,yet they will not let it go. Does it make sense to use good food production for fuel as opposed to feeding the hungry?
A bit of common sense and decency would go a long ways to changing things.
Malthus wasn't a scientist, he was a reverend. His training was in Greek, Latin and Math.
Might want to google 'food riots' and find out how many have happened in the last decade, and the predictions that the drought in the US this year is going to lead to others. In 2008 there were food riots in 28 different countries. Much of the unrest that lead to the 'Arab Spring' and the overthrow of several governments (Tunisia and Egypt) just this year started with food problems.
And I assume you have the necessary academic credentials from the proper universities to make such claims about science - or is it just a 'hunch' or something you 'guessed'?
snow disappearing
Oh, you'll want to join in my new contest to rename Glacial National Park. (Degree of Difficulty: Can't use the word "Glacier") The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850, and those are fast melting.
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_lake-jo08.htm (http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_lake-jo08.htm)
We'll be renaming the Hemingway classic The Snows of Kilimanjaro next.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3054/kilimanjaro_etm_93_00.jpg&imgrefurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id%3D3054&h=817&w=540& (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3054/kilimanjaro_etm_93_00.jpg&imgrefurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id%3D3054&h=817&w=540&)
Quote from: tekla on September 12, 2012, 07:26:00 PM
And I assume you have the necessary academic credentials from the proper universities to make such claims about science - or is it just a 'hunch' or something you 'guessed'?
Okay, I appreciate your support of science and don't like it when people bag on science, but you can kindly correct someone without asking a condescending rhetorical question. Discussion of politics is already unstable enough, we don't need to start a cat fight in here too. Let's all just take a deep breath and try to relax.
Just a fun fact to throw on those y'all are using. If we replace all of the land used to raise cattle to raise vegetation, we could easily feed the planet 5 times over. I know that things like hemp, solar//wind//hydro-power are good, but unfortunately, until we fix our divided system and all just come together to rationally and calmly look at common sense, environmental causes are lost.
I tend to vote democrat, as I will again this election. But ill admit some of the democratic stance on things are odd, but tend to work out in the end. Only reason I think obama should get another term is because he wasnt allowed to do anything, everything he purposed but obama care got filibuster'ed. in the last 4 years, the Republican party filibusted more then both parties put together over a 10 year time period. thats why it seems like nothing got done, the innerworkings succeeded in making him look like a failure. only reason im voting for him again also is because his cabinet passed more laws protecting the Trans community.
not to mention I think mitt's trickle down economic policy is the equivalent of getting pissed on without the courtesy of calling it rain.
It's not condescending to ask if you have proof that somehow goes against the current findings of every scientific body of national or international standing, and if that proof is based on hard science.
And, on this theme, I'll venture that the current conservative embrace of psudo-science and rejection of hard science is keeping a lot of rational people from supporting them and pretty much keeping them a minority political position. There are a lot of people who think that science is a rational method supported by reason, and though they might not like Obama or the Democrats, they are not about to support the opposition because of the science thing.
Quote from: tekla on September 12, 2012, 07:26:00 PM
Malthus wasn't a scientist, he was a reverend. His training was in Greek, Latin and Math.
Might want to google 'food riots' and find out how many have happened in the last decade, and the predictions that the drought in the US this year is going to lead to others. In 2008 there were food riots in 28 different countries. Much of the unrest that lead to the 'Arab Spring' and the overthrow of several governments (Tunisia and Egypt) just this year started with food problems.
And I assume you have the necessary academic credentials from the proper universities to make such claims about science - or is it just a 'hunch' or something you 'guessed'?
snow disappearing
Oh, you'll want to join in my new contest to rename Glacial National Park. (Degree of Difficulty: Can't use the word "Glacier") The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850, and those are fast melting.
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_lake-jo08.htm (http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/gg_lake-jo08.htm)
We'll be renaming the Hemingway classic The Snows of Kilimanjaro next.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3054/kilimanjaro_etm_93_00.jpg&imgrefurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id%3D3054&h=817&w=540& (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3054/kilimanjaro_etm_93_00.jpg&imgrefurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id%3D3054&h=817&w=540&)
But the scientific data very clearly shows that the Earth is near it 65 million year ambient temperature low.
The are two issues related to "global warming":
1. Is the current warming period, over the last 20,000 years +/- anthropogenic?
2. And is it necessarily a bad thing?
From out here the USA doesn't have any Conservatives. You seem to have a bunch of Right-Wing extremists all trying to outdo each other in their degree of extremism. If you were truly Conservative you would still have a Monarchy. :laugh:
David Cameron the UK PM is a Conservative who basically said that the Gov't had no business in people's bedrooms, so suppotrs marriage equality. Pity that Tony Abbott, aka 'The Mad Monk' is following the US trend and ceased to be conservative.
Karen.
Quote from: justmeinoz on September 13, 2012, 03:57:55 AM
From out here the USA doesn't have any Conservatives. You seem to have a bunch of Right-Wing extremists all trying to outdo each other in their degree of extremism. If you were truly Conservative you would still have a Monarchy. :laugh:
David Cameron the UK PM is a Conservative who basically said that the Gov't had no business in people's bedrooms, so suppotrs marriage equality. Pity that Tony Abbott, aka 'The Mad Monk' is following the US trend and ceased to be conservative.
Karen.
Some of the fundamental principles of modern American conservatism were laid out by William F Buckley, Jr, in the
National Review:
It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
Exactly my point. Pity Romney and his ilk do not follow it.
Quote from: tekla on September 13, 2012, 02:42:48 AM
It's not condescending to ask if you have proof that somehow goes against the current findings of every scientific body of national or international standing, and if that proof is based on hard science.
True, but you asked for credentials, which is different from proof. I do have to admit that I do not have the credentials you are asking for. I'm just a humble schoolteacher. If that makes me unqualified to continue in this discussion, I will refrain from further posts in this thread.
Quote from: tekla on September 13, 2012, 02:42:48 AM
There are a lot of people who think that science is a rational method supported by reason, and though they might not like Obama or the Democrats, they are not about to support the opposition because of the science thing.
Actually I do like the Democrats better in this election, and I think they are closer to the true conservative values (individual freedom, freedom from government interference in our medical and religious life, avoiding dangerous and experimental overseas military adventures, distaste for nation building experiments, wanting to shrink the bloated military bureaucracy, etc. etc.). I also agree that science is a rational process, and the best one to obtain truth about the world. I only have trouble with it when it is used to make predictions based on incomplete knowledge and assumptions about things that are not known.
I recall being taught the scientific method in 3 & 4th grade, atomic theory (on a level that was only taught in college physics at the graduate school level 30 years before, indeed much of what I was taught was unknown or unproved 30 years before) and evolutionary biology in 5th and beyond, by my teachers in a religious school. Brother Joe, my HS physics teacher was every bit as good (and in many cases better) then a few of my professors in college.
One area of climate change that is most worrisome is the effect it is already having on food production, like most small but gradual changes it impacts the most delicate crops first. Here is about 2.25 million articles on what is going on in the European wine industry now.
https://www.google.com/search?q=french+wineries+buying+land+in+england&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=french+wineries+buying+land+in+england+climate+change&oq=french+wineries+buying+land+in+england+climate+change&gs_l=serp.3..33i21.6091.8401.0.8562.15.14.0.0.0.0.201.1775.2j10j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1.1.laRrRw0pGZY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=dc3856d8d691a444&biw=1280&bih=651 (https://www.google.com/search?q=french+wineries+buying+land+in+england&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=french+wineries+buying+land+in+england+climate+change&oq=french+wineries+buying+land+in+england+climate+change&gs_l=serp.3..33i21.6091.8401.0.8562.15.14.0.0.0.0.201.1775.2j10j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1.1.laRrRw0pGZY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=dc3856d8d691a444&biw=1280&bih=651)
So happy to see you posting again Tekla!!!
For me the transgender conservative present the same dilemma as the Nazi-Jew. Could a Jew be a Nazi, many Jews believed that "certain Jew" either by their intellect, artistic capabilities, or by virtue of the mixed inheritance would escape persecution by the Nazis; history prove them wrong.
How can I support the Republican-Conservative Party whose platform denies me the most basic rights: right to marry who ever I want, right to determine my own gender, and the right to the integrity and self determination of my body. A party bent into imposing into other their own twisted morality.
To see their "twisted' morality just look at the programming offered by the so-called "conservative" TV/cable broadcasters.
It's a pretty clear choice when one side talks about gay/lesbian/transgender in terms of 'rights' in terms of a modern democratic nation-state and the other side can't mention it without using the word 'abomination' in the context of a Bronze Age theology. That's a pretty bright line.
It's Center- sort-of-leftish and extreme right, there is no real liberal left anymore, and certainty no real Left that ever gets a hearing on the MSM. I can all too easily upset my pals when I call Obama 'the best Republican President since Eisenhower' since they know it's basically true. Subtract all the 'diversity' crowd shots of the Democratic Convention and what you have was what use to be called a Republican Convention.
Both parties suck.... No politician seems to have their own opinions anymore, nor do they actually put their country before their politics....
Quote from: DianaP on September 13, 2012, 04:08:26 PM
Both parties suck.... No politician seems to have their own opinions anymore, nor do they actually put their country before their politics....
This, sooooo much this. Too much pandering for votes, not enough actual change.
A little off of my original topic but just wanted to bring up the whole food shortage thing and the drought this year that was mentioned. i know everywhere else might not be looking good but i was in my home land of North Dakota (a very large contributer to US agriculture), the whole summer, you should see the crops they are looking beautiful, the corn was 10 feet tall by july 4 (there used to be a saying "knee high by july". And wheat harvest started before July even was over, which is pretty much unheard of around there.
Climates change.
Climates change constantly.
There is no such thing as climate equilibrium.
Yeah droughts have been bad all over from what I understand.
There are critical differences between the two choices, many of them stark. Should Romney win and with the help of Congress trash the beginnings of a real national health plan it will be several decades or more before you'd ever see anything even remotely like it come up again. Insurance rates would rise drastically, and just about any payout would be forfeit for some 'pre-existing condition.' Coverage for transition, sure if you're a hot-shot executive with a gold plated policy, for regular people, never. The war in Afghanistan would be ramped up, new wars in Syria, Iran and perhaps even confrontations with Russia would come on-line - the monetary outlay would gut most domestic federal programs. Gay and transgender issues would not even receive a hearing, much less any action. Voting would become harder for a lot of people. Unregulated business and corporate power would grow, and in combination with enhanced states rights would prove to be very bad for the poorer states, and what's funny (in it's own way) is those are going to be the states that vote for Romney. Really, if you put it to a popular referendum (particularly in the bitterness that would follow such an election) would New York or California vote to send money to Mississippi, or Dakota? Nope, they would be on their own. Hell many parts of the US are damn close to being Third World as it it, but this would complete it. But just think how much more cheep plastic stuff you could get at WallMart when the people in Mississippi would get to work for lower wages then China. So the poor would get radically poorer even faster, while the rich would do very, very well. Perhaps they might Tinkle Down on some on you.
And, mostly, once the few people like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers buy the country cheep the cost to get it back would be most dear, if it could be done at all. It is slightly humorous to note thought that the first causality of the Citizens United decision was the the Republican Party itself.
Luckily they are running the most incomplete campaigns I've ever seen and it's fast slipping out of their grasp. Hope that in their idiocy of trying ban contraceptives from women, trying to make some forms of rape OK, race-bating, attacking the Hispanic community, and the legions of stuff that's even sillier, that they are going to kill the down ticket races too.
Quote from: tekla on September 13, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
There are critical differences between the two choices, many of them stark. Should Romney win and with the help of Congress trash the beginnings of a real national health plan it will be several decades or more before you'd ever see anything even remotely like it come up again. Insurance rates would rise drastically, and just about any payout would be forfeit for some 'pre-existing condition.' Coverage for transition, sure if you're a hot-shot executive with a gold plated policy, for regular people, never. The war in Afghanistan would be ramped up, new wars in Syria, Iran and perhaps even confrontations with Russia would come on-line - the monetary outlay would gut most domestic federal programs. Gay and transgender issues would not even receive a hearing, much less any action. Voting would become harder for a lot of people. Unregulated business and corporate power would grow, and in combination with enhanced states rights would prove to be very bad for the poorer states, and what's funny (in it's own way) is those are going to be the states that vote for Romney. Really, if you put it to a popular referendum (particularly in the bitterness that would follow such an election) would New York or California vote to send money to Mississippi, or Dakota? Nope, they would be on their own. Hell many parts of the US are damn close to being Third World as it it, but this would complete it. But just think how much more cheep plastic stuff you could get at WallMart when the people in Mississippi would get to work for lower wages then China. So the poor would get radically poorer even faster, while the rich would do very, very well. Perhaps they might Tinkle Down on some on you.
And, mostly, once the few people like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers buy the country cheep the cost to get it back would be most dear, if it could be done at all. It is slightly humorous to note thought that the first causality of the Citizens United decision was the the Republican Party itself.
Luckily they are running the most incomplete campaigns I've ever seen and it's fast slipping out of their grasp. Hope that in their idiocy of trying ban contraceptives from women, trying to make some forms of rape OK, race-bating, attacking the Hispanic community, and the legions of stuff that's even sillier, that they are going to kill the down ticket races too.
Couldn't have said it any better.
We all need to remember Susan's "Political Rules" sticky post at the top of the "Politics" page.
The discussion of individual candidates is only permitted with respect the GLBTQ issues.
The posts that stray from the rule will be taken down. There are several already in this topic.
Health care and insurance for Transpersons who do not get the first in any adequate measure, and in many cases would never be able or eligible to get the second, and all of whom could easily have what could be described as pre-existing conditions and thus would be excluded from coverage of their single greatest health problem seems pretty germane.
Restrictions on women's health care, reproductive freedom, and access to abortion is critical to many of our members.
Restrictions and on voting, and the impositions of restrictive documentation in order to do so, when many of our members have trouble getting their documentation in the first place, would effectively deny them their democratic voice, and marginalize an already marginalized population.
Doing away with gays in the military would effect several of our members, and make service for transpersons a matter of 'never' and not just 'later, much later.'
Stopping gay marriage would negativity effect many of our members.
Redefining rape would have incredibly violent repercussions for many of us.
Using race as a way to define people as 'the other' and not 'part of us' impacts many members here.
Allowing the rise of theocratic notions would radically increase an already intolerable level of discrimination against TG persons.
Lily, trans people are of all political persuasions. I have gotten off the grid. I'm never going to ever again vote for the two major parties. You have corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans. They do the bidding for corporations by passing laws which enrich them and their corporate sponsors. There are many viable parties but as Jamie D mentioned there needs to be cooperation. One suggestin is find some that all parties agree on. Egos need to be set aside and working to imrove the lives of every day people.
The worst part of this election is the estimated two billion dollars that will be spent for hate sake on negative political ads that no one wants to see or will remember. >:(
There are many people of many politcal persuasions here. Makes for some interesting conversations. You have corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans. They do the bidding for corporations on laws they want passed. Translation: both parties serve the corporate hierarchy. Here are issues that NEITHER party isaddressing: 18 millon children go to bed hungry every night. There are over a million homeless veterans and over 100,000 are women. There are 100 million people in America in poverty. There are about 18 million senior citizens who are poor. They've lost there pensions, savings, and some cases, their homes to speculators, raiders, and unethical mortgage lenders. The banks have been bailed out but not the middle class. The real unemployment rate is around 21 %. Where are the advocates for these people? I could go on but that's enough for now.
I think political allegiances in America usually are the same in trans and non trans people. Typically your older people are more conservative and the younger people are more liberal voting. What's that old saying, something like "if you are a democrat and under 30 you are an idealist, if you are a democrat >60 you are stupid" lol? Something like that. Younger people tend to be more supportive of democrats in my experience, but I don't know, maybe it's different in the middle of the country. On the coasts it seems to be that way. I'm independent, I don't listen to The Man, The Man can't hold me down! I'm breaking freeeeee!
Something like, If you're a republican under 30 you have no heart, if you are a democrat over 40 you are stupid.
Though I don't subscribe to the saying
Quote from: SarahM777 on September 12, 2012, 07:01:55 PM
...The only reason [hemp]'s not grown is because it resembles Marijuana...[Ethanol] costs more in energy to produce it then it yields,yet they will not let it go...
No hemp for rope, fabrics, paper, etc? The cotton lobby.
No hemp for ethanol, which would be much more efficient? The corn lobby. I don't think it has that much to do with marijuana, except as a scare tactic by the cotton lobby. A lot more people smoke pot now than when hemp was commercially grown.
Quote from: MeghanAndrews on October 09, 2012, 10:44:54 PM
...What's that old saying...?...
In one of its more extreme forms, Meghan, it goes something like this: "If you're under 30 and not a communist, you have no heart. If you're still a communist at 60, you have no brain."
Quote from: LilyoftheValley on September 10, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
Just wondering if anybody is in the same boat as i am, i do identify as MTF but politically i fall into the conservative end of the spectrum, i am deeply saddened by their lack of support and sometimes utter resistance to us, but in honesty i believe their economic, environmental, and other various standpoints just make far more sense than the Democrats, also i believe that the democratic politicians are willing to say anything for our votes, and i dont really believe that they truly give a damn about us, just our voting power. If only there were republicans who could show us some support, that would certainly be interesting, a far more poweful libertarian party, in my opinion, could really help out the USA. Reading about health care in socialistic countries, and the long waits everybody faces just to see a doctor, doesnt really make obamacare sound too appealing to me, because in reality, no matter what is on paper in Obamacare, it faces the realitiess of: limited doctors, limited supply chains, and government intrusion. Hearing stories of transgendered people in other countries with government provided health care having to wait YEARS just to get on HRT shows me that government health care is a load of crap.
Don't base your opinions on "what you hear." Get informed. Do you know what a low information voter is?
Quote from: ashley_thomas on October 09, 2012, 10:47:17 PM
Something like, If you're a republican under 30 you have no heart, if you are a democrat over 40 you are stupid.
Though I don't subscribe to the saying
What is stupid is voting against one's own best interests.
Quote from: UCBerkeleyPostop on November 05, 2012, 11:55:52 PM
What is stupid is voting against one's own best interests.
Now if only there was a clear consensus on what was best for people :p
Ofc, my definition for myself is probably closer to the majority feeling on this forum
My primary motivation is ME. So, I'll vote for the party that will protect my rights. Straight down the line. The other party has made no overtures to make me think they want anything but for me to kick my feet up and die.... right after I vote for them. My sin? I'm a trans woman. I feel the same for everyone in the GLBT communities. We all deserve to have the same rights as anyone else.
We all vote our concience, that is the way it should be.
I will never let any one issue decide my direction.
Good luck to both candidates.
Obamacare is not socialism. It's mandatory health care (like mandatory car insurance) through private companies with regulations on how those companies spend their money and who they treat.
The stories about "long lines to see a doctor" are not true. There are long waits to see specialists but that happens in America too. What else happens in America? Not being able to see a doctor at all. People are denied access to medical care because insurance is required and people are profiteering.
America has had long waits on HRT too or not had it paid for by insurance at all. A lot of Americans are ordering drugs from these countries you think are worse off because they're cheaper with better access. Obama has consistently voted in favor of GLBT rights and if he stays on is track, could federally allow trans treatments.
It's easy to make stuff sound good, but always look at the opposing viewpoint. I own a business, make a good living, and pay a ton in taxes. I will never vote Republican because that party is now entirely about morality and profiteering.
The opposition to Obamacare is simple. Insurance companies not being allowed to only grant healthy people coverage means they have a higher loss percentage and can't profit as much. That's it. Business over medical care.
One need only read the stories from our Canadian and British cousins to realize the failures of socialized medicine.
You need to be careful about sweeping generalizations.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 06, 2012, 12:08:17 PM
One need only read the stories from our Canadian and British cousins to realize the failures of socialized medicine.
You need to be careful about sweeping generalizations.
Of course every Canadian or UK Transsexual citizen sooner or later can get a SRS if she or he so desires.
For USA Transsexuals you better work for a company who offers SRS as part of your health benefits, or better be rich so you can fork the monies to pay for it. But if you are a poor then all you are in the proverbial "up to the creek without a paddle"
Quote from: peky on November 06, 2012, 01:25:48 PM
Of course every Canadian or UK Transsexual citizen sooner or later can get a SRS if she or he so desires.
For USA Transsexuals you better work for a company who offers SRS as part of your health benefits, or better be rich so you can fork the monies to pay for it. But if you are a poor then all you are in the proverbial "up to the creek without a paddle"
And just think that there is not probably more than 5,000 MTF transsexuals in the USA. Even if all wanted and could get an SRS, that would be about $ 50,000.000 (50 million), that is assuming $10,000 per surgery.
Wow, you said 50 millions!!!!. But before you get so shock, think that the number of knee replacements in the USA in 2010 were 600,000, at $15,000 each comes to a whopping $9,000,000,000.00 (9 thousand millions).
Oh but "people really need a "knee replacement" while SRS...well is just that a "life style."
Ponder the fact that suicides due to "knee" problems are unheard of, while GID is ones of the leading causes of suicides.
Quote from: Venus-Castina on November 06, 2012, 02:46:15 PM
At least the entire transition, including hrt and srs is paid for by basic health insurance thanks to government interference in my country, while many, many transgenders in the USA cannot afford their transition causing them to get stuck between genders.
Or doing questionable things to earn money.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 06, 2012, 12:08:17 PM
One need only read the stories from our Canadian and British cousins to realize the failures of socialized medicine.
You need to be careful about sweeping generalizations.
And the above isn't a sweeping generalization? There are plenty of stories in the USA about failures our system has now. I am one of them. I can't get reasonably priced health insurance because I have this pre-existing condition of being transgendered. I'm not talking about wanting my gender stuff paid for, I just want to be able to access general health care.
Until recently, thanks to Bush, it was perfectly legal for a doctor to deny care based on religious or moral reasons. So I could get into a car accident, show up in the ER and the doctor could legally say "I'm not working on this freak." Thanks to Obama, that is not longer the case. Oh yeah, that's right "they haven't done anything to help LGBT people in this administration" *rolls eyes*
stephe what act was it exactly that bush passed to cause that?
I was talking with my girlfriend and suggested in jest that we should start a "Rainbow Nationals" locally, GLBTIQ branch of the National Party just to watch the reaction. >:-)
It looks like there is no local state branch of the Nats, so it could actually be feasible. They claim to be a Conservative party, but they also favour Gov't support for farmers and improved social welfare policies in rural areas, which makes sense as they were originally known as the Country Party.
Maybe after I finish Uni? And Tekla could see if it is possible to register and launch a "Rainbow Republicans". I could forsee many Trans-Pacific official visits! :laugh:
Karen.
read more here:
http://www.bjconline.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4238 (http://www.bjconline.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4238)
I have no problem letting a doctor decide if they want to perform abortions but what bush did was make the rule so broad it can be applied to anything.
Quote from: peky on November 06, 2012, 01:50:39 PM
And just think that there is not probably more than 5,000 MTF transsexuals in the USA. Even if all wanted and could get an SRS, that would be about $ 50,000.000 (50 million), that is assuming $10,000 per surgery.
Wow, you said 50 millions!!!!. But before you get so shock, think that the number of knee replacements in the USA in 2010 were 600,000, at $15,000 each comes to a whopping $9,000,000,000.00 (9 thousand millions).
Oh but "people really need a "knee replacement" while SRS...well is just that a "life style."
Ponder the fact that suicides due to "knee" problems are unheard of, while GID is ones of the leading causes of suicides.
Let's review your math, Peky.
We know that 3.5% of the population in the United States identified as "transgendered." (According to a report issued by the Williams Institute at UCLA) Of that, 0.3% identify as "transgender."
Let's assume that just 1/3 of all trangendered persons are MtF. In the United States there are approximately 310,000,000 people. That means there would be about 310,000 MtFs.
Conway estimates that there are 30,000 to 40,000
post-op Mtfs in the US.
So your estimate seems to be off by one to two orders of magnitude.
Perhaps more problematical, is your idea that somehow the taxpayers owe you an operation.
Quote from: Stephe on November 06, 2012, 04:55:30 PM
And the above isn't a sweeping generalization? There are plenty of stories in the USA about failures our system has now. I am one of them. I can't get reasonably priced health insurance because I have this pre-existing condition of being transgendered. I'm not talking about wanting my gender stuff paid for, I just want to be able to access general health care.
Until recently, thanks to Bush, it was perfectly legal for a doctor to deny care based on religious or moral reasons. So I could get into a car accident, show up in the ER and the doctor could legally say "I'm not working on this freak." Thanks to Obama, that is not longer the case. Oh yeah, that's right "they haven't done anything to help LGBT people in this administration" *rolls eyes*
Saying that some of our Canadian and British cousins have had problems with their socialized medicine has problems, is a generalization? No. That is a fact. A generalization would have been, "socialized medicine provides inferior care." That may be a fact too!
Quote from: MeghanAndrews on October 09, 2012, 10:44:54 PM
I think political allegiances in America usually are the same in trans and non trans people. Typically your older people are more conservative and the younger people are more liberal voting. What's that old saying, something like "if you are a democrat and under 30 you are an idealist, if you are a democrat >60 you are stupid" lol? Something like that. Younger people tend to be more supportive of democrats in my experience, but I don't know, maybe it's different in the middle of the country. On the coasts it seems to be that way. I'm independent, I don't listen to The Man, The Man can't hold me down! I'm breaking freeeeee!
Please show some evidence that people switch voting from liberal to conservative when they get older. I would love to see that.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 06, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Saying that some of our Canadian and British cousins have had problems with their socialized medicine has problems, is a generalization?
What you said was "One need only read the stories from our Canadian and British cousins to realize the failures of socialized medicine."
If reading some horror stories about what sometimes happens there = it will be a failure, the same hold true even more so for what we have now in this country. There are plenty of horror stories about people being denied coverage here.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/US-Ranks-Last-Among-Seven-Countries.aspx (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/US-Ranks-Last-Among-Seven-Countries.aspx)
We are at the bottom of the list of multiple countries who do have socialized medicine.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 06, 2012, 12:08:17 PM
One need only read the stories from our Canadian and British cousins to realize the failures of socialized medicine.
You need to be careful about sweeping generalizations.
? That's called confirmation bias. American medicine is not "socialized." It's federally mandated for people to have insurance, just like they do on their cars. The US system was broken, now it's better. Obama is doing a lot for GLBT people.
What we have now seems worse than socialized medicine. There are lots of regulations and a litigious society contributes to exorbitant costs of healthcare. Obamacare feels more like corporate welfare than a step toward socialized medicine. Mandating insurance sounds great for the insurance companies which practically wholesale supported it. That should have been a red flag for a lot of people. Meanwhile, I was uninsured before OC and I remain uninsured after OC. The main difference is that now I might get fined by the government for not getting health insurance that has been made dramatically more expensive largely due to government policy.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 06, 2012, 09:04:19 PM
Let's review your math, Peky.
We know that 3.5% of the population in the United States identified as "transgendered." (According to a report issued by the Williams Institute at UCLA) Of that, 0.3% identify as "transgender."
Let's assume that just 1/3 of all trangendered persons are MtF. In the United States there are approximately 310,000,000 people. That means there would be about 310,000 MtFs.
Conway estimates that there are 30,000 to 40,000 post-op Mtfs in the US.
So your estimate seems to be off by one to two orders of magnitude.
Perhaps more problematical, is your idea that somehow the taxpayers owe you an operation.
Dear JamieD,
I am terribly sorry but for the time being I am unable to comment in this therad or respond to the specifics of your post. Suffice to say that I diasgree.
BTW It was never my intention to "upset you"
Quote from: japple on November 07, 2012, 03:58:51 AM
? That's called confirmation bias. American medicine is not "socialized." It's federally mandated for people to have insurance, just like they do on their cars. The US system was broken, now it's better. Obama is doing a lot for GLBT people.
Aspects of American medicine have been socialized for decades. The V.A., for instance.
The system previously was not "broken." You could get any service you wanted and could afford. That's called the "free market." Any degradation of the free market with government controls is a movement toward socialization.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 07, 2012, 02:12:45 PM
Aspects of American medicine have been socialized for decades. The V.A., for instance.
The system previously was not "broken." You could get any service you wanted and could afford. That's called the "free market." Any degradation of the free market with government controls is a movement toward socialization.
I own a business. I create jobs. I make a bunch of dough. I understand business. Every move against a plutocratic
corporatocracy does not mean "socialism." Government should regulate commerce, if they didn't we'd still have slavery.
That's a fear tactic. If you say "someone is moving away from Christianity" the average Christian would freak out and assume they're becoming an Atheist. They may be becoming Jewish or Hindu or something new.
Democracy is an experiment. We did not nationalize healthcare. I would fight against that.
Several aspects of a free market do not work for health insurance, which is what Obamacare changed. 1. People are not taking personal responsibility for health care leaving those who do to bail them out. ER visits and non-preventative care ends up making health costs rise. The uninsured hurt everyone, if you get hit by an uninsured driver, you're paying for your own car out of your own insurance. 2. Insurance companies denied sick people. The free market is great as long as it's not used for human exploitation. (Not giving people cancer treatments because of a loophole if criminal to me, people first....see slavery or company stores..which makes A LOT of sense in a free market but are now illegal because they are too exploitive.)
3. Insurance was mostly tied to and had benefit around a person's work. This is not the free market. People could not leave their jobs to start their own business because there were no alternative to group health care, especially if you were ever sick.
Obamacare is awesome. It fixed a broken system, makes everyone pay their fair share, and is going to be very good for trans people.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 07, 2012, 02:12:45 PM
You could get any service you wanted and could afford. That's called the "free market."
So you are OK with.. Lets say you get cancer and between surgery and chemo it's gonna run $200,000. So only people who can afford this should get treatment and the rest just die? O.o
heck if that is what is socialism is, I embrace it.
Quote from: Stephe on November 07, 2012, 02:55:01 PM
So you are OK with.. Lets say you get cancer and between surgery and chemo it's gonna run $200,000. So only people who can afford this should get treatment and the rest just die? O.o
That is the whole idea behind insurance. You pool a large group of people together and you share the risks. Some will get cancer, most will not. That's still the free market.
And what about the unemployed or under insured. I am unemployed, and despite the fact I am still looking for work, if I get sick I have to go to the ER.
If there was a national healthcare system, such as in the UK or Canada, I could get preventative medical care rather than waiting to become very ill.
The United States is about the only major country in the world that has a private insurance system.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 07, 2012, 03:02:15 PM
That is the whole idea behind insurance. You pool a large group of people together and you share the risks. Some will get cancer, most will not. That's still the free market.
That sounds great IF I could get insurance.. You know pre-existing conditions and all. I'm "high risk" and as a single insured, the rates are insanely high, more than I can afford. Obviously you have no problem either getting reasonable insurance or your work provides it? Glad it works -for you-.
What a lot of people don't realize is the new Obama Health Plan is essentially Medi-caid in 2014, but for people who make less than 133% of fed. pov. level, which is almost $15K a year for a family of one. The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) runs up to $900 a month depending on who you choose as your insurer but the cheapest is like $250 - $300 a month or something like that.
Quote from: MeghanAndrews on November 07, 2012, 10:49:04 PM
What a lot of people don't realize is the new Obama Health Plan is essentially Medi-caid in 2014, but for people who make less than 133% of fed. pov. level, which is almost $15K a year for a family of one. The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) runs up to $900 a month depending on who you choose as your insurer but the cheapest is like $250 - $300 a month or something like that.
Which makes it unaffordable for those like myself.
Quote from: Stephe on September 12, 2012, 02:35:52 PM
^ This. I am financially conservative but socially liberal. There doesn't seem to be anyone on that platform and many seem to just be SOOOO extreme either left or right.
there was a guy running who described himself exactly the same way, and he got my vocal enthusiastic support.
I am the 1%
The 1% that voted for Gary Johnson. And I'll spend the next 4 years trying to get people (most Americans, in my judgement) who also describe themselves as economically conservative and socially liberal to wake u, stop being manipulated by the two branches of the Borg, and actually vote for a man they agree with.
Jumping in on the health care thing, since it's blatantly obvious that a total free market approach getting government spending completely out of the market is a non-starter politically for anyone, the question is how do we structure the government funding/involvement in a way which provides the broadest coverage while maximizing the positive influence of market forces.
In my view, the best solution is personal medical accounts. Essentially, a voucher like system in which the funding comes from the government, but the choices about how and when to use the funds are left in the hands of consumers who are incentive to manage the funds as they would their own pocketbook.
One way to do this might be to let saved funds roll over into a "Tier 2" account at some point which could be used for things not covered by the basic account such as plastic surgery (while still being available for crucial medical needs).
This would have to be supplemented by catastrophic care policies which could be subsidized for the lower income people on a means tested basis, but should be much more affordable for those who did by because the insurance companies would be avoiding the payouts for routine care.
The details would need to be hammered out but in all likelihood, between the downward pressure on the cost of services, and the vastly decreased administrative costs, the whole thing could likely be paid for with a similar amount of cash as will be required in any given year to fund medicare, medicaid, and VA medical services.
I keep getting lost in these arguments. The OS models work well. Everyone pays X% of their wage as health insurance. If you don't earn you don't pay. If you earn a lot you pay a lot. If you want private insurance AS WELL you pay for that as well.
If you are sick you go to hospital and get treated. It's already paid for.
Yes the poor don't pay but that is what a society if for, you look after each other.
Yes lots of people take out private insurance as well for extra benefits, but that is what they are, extra benefits.
I really don't see the problem?
Our system isn't perfect, but it works reasonably well.
I can claim a substantial percentage of my GT bill on Medicare for instance, and as I am a student, get cheaper HRT. Once I am earning a decent wage I will have to pay full price, but I will be able to afford it. Can't see what the problem is really.
All part of being a genuine Conservative and a consequence of living in a decent Constitutional Monarchy I would say. ;D Charles and Camilla visited today too. ;)
Karen.
As Cindy and Karen have said, the system here works, mostly. No, it doesn't cover everything - it doesn't cover SRS (yet). It does, however, make my therapy and gyno visits affordable - not free, but affordable.
Quote from: Cindy James on November 08, 2012, 03:24:04 AM
I keep getting lost in these arguments. The OS models work well. Everyone pays X% of their wage as health insurance. If you don't earn you don't pay. If you earn a lot you pay a lot. If you want private insurance AS WELL you pay for that as well.
If you are sick you go to hospital and get treated. It's already paid for.
Yes the poor don't pay but that is what a society if for, you look after each other.
Yes lots of people take out private insurance as well for extra benefits, but that is what they are, extra benefits.
I really don't see the problem?
You do not see a problem, I do not see a problem, most of humanity does not see a problem, but the 'rubber barons' have a problem with it.
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save INSERT YOUR CORPORATION HERE, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A
The problem with this philosophy is that while is good for the share holders in the short run, it is not in the long run. The shareholders do not live in a bubble, they are part of a community, their own welfare is depend in having a healthy community around them.
The problem with this philosophy is that while is good for the share holders in the short run, ti is devastating for the National security of a Nation.
Quote from: peky on November 08, 2012, 07:41:05 AM
Greed
I don't think that's a fair characterization of people (at least not all of us) who don't have much faith in government to do things well. I do feel people act primarily in their self-interest whether they're running a business or they're running a government. That's not a good thing. It's just the reality I am stuck with.
I look at handing something off to the government as a monopoly and I don't like it anymore than I like giant corporate monopolies like Google or Facebook or banks, etc. When you have a monopoly, you're less accountable. People don't have choices and when you only have one choice, what can you do about it if you don't like that choice? What incentive does a monopoly have to do things better? To lower prices? To provide better services?
I love the idea of everyone not having to think about healthcare, but I just think it's not a rational expectation. I expect it to cost more over time and for the quality to go down drastically.
An analogy I like to use--I'm an ignostic (kind of like agnostic). A Christian might say that I obviously don't care about my mom who was sick in the hospital because I didn't pray for her. But I didn't pray because I don't believe prayer is effective. Meanwhile, just like the Christian, I love my mom dearly. We have the same goals but believe in different tactics for getting there.
By the same reasoning, I don't have faith in the government to run healthcare well. It's not that I don't want poor people to have healthcare. I do. It's certainly not that I think greed is a good thing. I just know that people running the government aren't exempt from it and yet we feel okay to hand them a monopoly over one of the most important things in our lives. People in business are no better, but they can't force us to pay for their services. We can (if the market is allowed to thrive) always go somewhere else, and that's forces them to be more accountable than the government has to be.
I know I can vote or write my congressman, but I just don't have any faith in that process either. My odds of impacting National offices is about on par with my odds of winning the lottery. Trying to change something I don't like about how the government is running healthcare is a joke compared to having the option to just change providers in a free market. It's a huge clunky system that's slow to respond to people's needs.
Something I think is important to keep in mind if you're (justifiably) concerned about greedy businesses--mercantilism is rampant, especially in America. The businesses that you described as greedy (and they are) are in bed with government. They're lobbying money has so much more power than your vote. In fact, they picked our choices for president and that's a lot more powerful than you having a lottery ticket's chance of impacting which one of their choices won. I'm just using the presidency as an example, but it's true with politicians across the board.
We should all be concerned with getting their fingers out of the government. Obamacare feels more like corporate welfare than socialized medicine to me. As I said, I am still uninsured because it's still too expensive. I'm not quite poor enough to get free healthcare unless I start lying which I could get away with but I'm not okay with.
And requiring insurance companies to cover more and more and include pre-existing conditions is going to make insurance much more expensive across the board when it would be (and traditionally was) MUCH cheaper for people who are basically healthy and just want to be prepared for the unexpected.
An interesting article and concept from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
January 16, 2012
Thomas Willett, country doctor, is still tilting at medical windmills. Willett is now in the second year of an experiment to bring affordable healthcare to Green Lake, WI, by wringing out back-office costs and passing on the savings to patients.
"The concept is just so simple," Willett said this week during a follow-up visit from the Journal Sentinel. In November 2010, the newspaper wrote about Willett's attempt to take a "scalpel to insurance" as he set up the Access Affordable Healthcare clinic to provide "quality medical care for less."
In a pamphlet that contains a fee schedule for services, it says, "No bills, insurance forms or hassle. Simply pay at the time of service."
Willett's prices remain remarkably low, from $39 for an office visit up to $500 for a vasectomy. The avuncular, 69-year-old doctor has now fully transitioned from running his long-established family practice to operating the clinic.
What Willett figured is this: Overhead at his practice was eating up 62% of revenue, largely because of costs associated with insurance for things such as dictation, coding, electronic claims submission and reimbursement.
By charging patients up front, Willett surmised he could slash most of the back-office costs and lower prices by up to two-thirds. Willett said he has accomplished that first goal. But he has another goal: to show others they can make it financially under his system.
"I need to get to a certain patient load to prove to the doctors that their income level won't change," he said. "Most don't understand they work for the hospital or someone else. If I charge $125 (for a basic visit under insurance), I still only get $39."
To make it work financially, he said, a doctor would need to see up to 25 patients daily. Right now, in his clinic, Willett sees 10 to 12 patients daily.
Helping hand
Willett runs the clinic with the help of Holly Thorp, the longtime manager of his old family practice. Thorp is a dynamo who keeps the books, negotiates prices with labs and schedules patients. She also wrote up an advertisement that played on a local radio station to draw more people to the clinic.
"Watch us go," Thorp said. "I think the practice will go big guns." Added Willett: "We want to notify all the area businesses, all the human resource departments, let them know how much they can save."
Green Lake County recently contracted with Willett to provide service for its employees. Willett sees the patients and is reimbursed by the insurance provider, WCA Group Health Trust. Co-pays and deductibles are waived for the employees, and Willett bills the insurance company directly, eliminating much of the normal paperwork. Around 10 to 15 county workers have used Willett's services.
Willett is also making his case to politicians. This week, he met with U.S. Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) to detail the cost savings of the program. He also made a pitch for using Green Lake County to develop a pilot Medicaid program for the state.
Under Willett's program, those enrolled in BadgerCare would receive a debit card with a predetermined amount of money that could be used at Access Healthcare and with other participating physicians in the county. He estimates Green Lake County could save $550,000 on office visits alone because of the lower rates charged.
Such a program would need a waiver from the federal government. "Unfortunately, it's a slow process to get any kind of change," said state Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon), who added he would like to see the pilot program in Green Lake County.
"I thought it was an interesting idea. One of the concerns, of course, is the record-keeping. A lot of money and time and manpower go with all the records that need to be kept. His system does not have the middleman or the record-keeping. The question is: Can the healthcare industry survive without all the documentation?"
Keeping them happy
Willett's patients appear to be quite satisfied to go to his clinic. Andrew Stobb, 19, who was delivered by Willett, stopped by for a quick physical in anticipation of signing up with the U.S. Army. Instead of fooling with co-pays, he simply paid $39. "The way he does his job is still the same," Stobb said. "As a taxpayer, I think they should just do it this way all the time."
Green Lake County Clerk Margaret Bostelmann's family was in Willett's practice for decades. They continue to see him at the clinic. "With Tom's thinking, it goes back to the way he started his business of being able to work with a patient and concentrate on a patient," she said.
Bostelmann said she would be delighted if Willett could put his BadgerCare idea into practice in the county. "We're small. We have 20,000 people. I guess if you would do a pilot program and the state could review the bills to see what is happening to these folks, you could see how it would work."
Meanwhile, Willett remains on the job, working hard, trying to heal patients and make the medical system work better for all. As he made his pitch to Petri, Willett paused, smiled and said, "It's a good time in my life. The good Lord has been good to me."
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, which is based on Romneycare) is not actually "socialism", as so many complain. Socialism would be something resembling a single payer system, Medicare for all, like what most other civilized nations have. I personally wish that Obama had fought for single payer. If we'd gotten that, then you could legitimately complain about "socialism".
I can't say if ACA working for me, because my state hasn't set up an exchange yet, and it will be 2014 until I can buy into whatever they do. I, like many self employed people, have no access to an employers' plan, and don't make enough to both purchase insurance and pay for my health care. So no insurance. What a great deal! <sarcasm>
Z
Quote from: Zythyra on November 08, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, which is based on Romneycare) is not actually "socialism", as so many complain. Socialism would be something resembling a single payer system, Medicare for all, like what most other civilized nations have. I personally wish that Obama had fought for single payer. If we'd gotten that, then you could legitimately complain about "socialism".
I can't say if ACA working for me, because my state hasn't set up an exchange yet, and it will be 2014 until I can buy into whatever they do. I, like many self employed people, have no access to an employers' plan, and don't make enough to both purchase insurance and pay for my health care. So no insurance. What a great deal! <sarcasm>
Z
This ^^^ is well know by the "free-market" "you are a socialist" types. They know and they do not give a ->-bleeped-<-; it is all about their 'bottom line." Their exit strategy is the usual: "that is what charities are for, to provide a safety net."
Well, let me remind you of the safety nets pre-Franklin Roosevelt era;
you are rich, you get sick, you go to a hospital, pay for care, you get better, you live
you are poor, you get sick, you go to charity hospital, you pretend to pay for care, they pretend to care for you, you get worse, you died
Just the facts dear
I guess with all the technological advancements quenched by dwindling resources, humanity is at a cross roads: either we choose to be Ferengi or we become the Federation
Quote from: Zythyra on November 08, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, which is based on Romneycare) is not actually "socialism", as so many complain. Socialism would be something resembling a single payer system, Medicare for all, like what most other civilized nations have. I personally wish that Obama had fought for single payer. If we'd gotten that, then you could legitimately complain about "socialism".
I can't say if ACA working for me, because my state hasn't set up an exchange yet, and it will be 2014 until I can buy into whatever they do. I, like many self employed people, have no access to an employers' plan, and don't make enough to both purchase insurance and pay for my health care. So no insurance. What a great deal! <sarcasm>
Z
As a physician and surgeon, I have been sounding the warning that Obamacare is nothing more than socialized medicine as seen in Europe and the former Soviet Union. The following is a review of an article of the truth about what we can expect with ObamaCare.
The incentives that are an essential part of recently passed healthcare reform have been tried many times before, always with the same result, warns economist Yuri Maltsev, Ph.D., in the summer 2011 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and in a presentation to AAPS members in Omaha last month.
Before defecting to the West, Maltsev was a member of a senior Soviet economics team that worked on President Gorbachev's reform package under perestroika.
The Soviet system looked good on paper, employing plan indicators to indicate hospital performance, Maltsev observes....
"Age discrimination is very apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated medical systems," Maltsev writes. It has not yet taken hold in the U.S. because the elderly vote in large numbers. But Americans are insidiously being prepared for it by the architects of Obama's plan, he notes.
In Russia, the trend is toward privatization, while "Obama suggested a system that we can rightly define as communist or socialist," states Maltsev, quoting Oleg Kulikov, a member of the Russian Duma (parliament). Kulikov also remarked that "they [Americans] are assuming positions that we've abandoned...."
The Full op-ed by Dr. Ritze can be found here:
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5265 (http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5265)
Quote from: Peky on November 08, 2012, 04:47:03 PM
This ^^^ is well know by the "free-market" "you are a socialist" types. They know and they do not give a ->-bleeped-<-; it is all about their 'bottom line." Their exit strategy is the usual: "that is what charities are for, to provide a safety net."
Well, let me remind you of the safety nets pre-Franklin Roosevelt era;
you are rich, you get sick, you go to a hospital, pay for care, you get better, you live
you are poor, you get sick, you go to charity hospital, you pretend to pay for care, they pretend to care for you, you get worse, you died
Just the facts dear
I fully realize they don't give a damn about anything but the bottom line. I'm quite tired of hearing continual misuse of terminology. Obama is no socialist. He is a centrist, pretty far from being liberal. In fact, many of his policies are Republican.
Regarding charities, I'm friends with ministers of various faiths. They've all told me that there isn't enough money in their coffers to help everyone, as much as they'd love to. I'm also friends with Canadians, even when they've had complaints, not a one has said they'd prefer our system to theirs. I'd be OK with my tax dollars actually helping people, funding education, health care (not insurance companies), instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.
Z
Quote from: Zythyra on November 08, 2012, 09:58:17 PM
instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.
Or giving trillions in tax cuts to the 1% on their -personal taxes-. I am sick of hearing how this money "creates jobs" and would hurt small business. I've owned a business or two and the money you spend on operating expenses you already pay no tax on. You can reinvest your money into a business and it is already and will remain tax free. The only time it is taxed is when you claim it as personal income i.e. a CEO taking a massive "bonus" (at the expense of having to fire hundreds of employees in most cases). The vast majority of small business owners don't have a taxable income anywhere close to what they are talking about.
Quote from: Stephe on November 08, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Quote from: Zythyra on November 08, 2012, 09:58:17 PM
instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.
Or giving trillions in tax cuts to the 1% on their -personal taxes-. I am sick of hearing how this money "creates jobs" and would hurt small business.
Yes, it's hypocritical that they constantly blame Democrats as big spenders, when the Republicans justify spending just as much or more on different issues.
Z
Quote from: Zythyra on November 08, 2012, 09:58:17 PM
I'd be OK with my tax dollars actually helping people, funding education, health care (not insurance companies), instead of spending TRILLIONS on wars that we have no business being in.
This is why I often self-describe as liberal even though I am technically libertarian. It has to do with what I value. I sympathize here. Whenever I hear people complaining about how much money the government wastes, I tune them out if they don't first and foremost address military spending. I fear the U.S. is facing a potential massive economic collapse and I can't imagine any way to avoid it that doesn't involve drastic cuts to military spending. Any talk of getting the budget under control by cutting all the other stuph is a joke which is why it's so hard for me to take most Republicans seriously when they pretend to be fiscally conservative. Not only is that what we need to do for economic reasons, but our invasive foreign policy is obscene and unacceptable morally and is actually making us less safe. Welfare and food stamps, I'm willing to talk about the negative social ramifications, but to talk about cutting them to save money is a joke. They're a tiny drop in the bucket.
Quote from: dalebert on November 09, 2012, 09:38:47 AM
Welfare and food stamps, I'm willing to talk about the negative social ramifications, but to talk about cutting them to save money is a joke. They're a tiny drop in the bucket.
Also, I think people have it backwards. They want to be delicate about withdrawing military presence from foreign countries. I think we should do that ASAP. Meanwhile, changing social programs is something that would need to be done more delicately because they have fostered a culture of dependence and can't just jerk the rug from under people. Part of that is inhibiting the private economy in ways that make it harder for regular people to earn a living due to mercantilism.
Quote from: Jamie D on November 08, 2012, 04:47:03 PM
As a physician and surgeon, I have been sounding the warning that Obamacare is nothing more than socialized medicine as seen in Europe and the former Soviet Union. The following is a review of an article of the truth about what we can expect with ObamaCare.
The incentives that are an essential part of recently passed healthcare reform have been tried many times before, always with the same result, warns economist Yuri Maltsev, Ph.D., in the summer 2011 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and in a presentation to AAPS members in Omaha last month.
Before defecting to the West, Maltsev was a member of a senior Soviet economics team that worked on President Gorbachev's reform package under perestroika.
The Soviet system looked good on paper, employing plan indicators to indicate hospital performance, Maltsev observes....
The Full op-ed by Dr. Ritze can be found here:
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5265 (http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5265)
For those who do not know AMA stand for the "American Medical Association" which is the official "voice" of all
American Physician.
Please see below the AMA postion regarding "Obamacare"
Quote[AMA: Supreme Court Decision Protects Much-Needed Health Insurance Coverage for Millions of Americans
For immediate release:
June 28, 2012
Statement attributable to:
Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD
President, American Medical Association
The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy.
/quote]
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page)
From the "Horses mouth" so to speak; besides who can trust a defector (an euphemism for a traitor)
Quote from: dalebert on November 09, 2012, 09:41:39 AM
Also, I think people have it backwards. They want to be delicate about withdrawing military presence from foreign countries. I think we should do that ASAP. Meanwhile, changing social programs is something that would need to be done more delicately because they have fostered a culture of dependence and can't just jerk the rug from under people. Part of that is inhibiting the private economy in ways that make it harder for regular people to earn a living due to mercantilism.
Please define what you mean by mercantilism, it is a term applied to pre-Adam Smith, pre-laissez faire France. Louis XVI finance minister instituted mercantilism. I think you might be talking about Keynsian or Neo-Keynesian economics, which is exactly what this country needs.
We need to increase the food stamp program. There are millions of kids who are not getting enough to eat and/or worse yet families eat junk food because it is cheaper than fruits and vegetables, the result will be millions of dollars of health care costs. It is the same wrong-headed view that leads politicians to back spending money for prisons instead of education.
Having had a chat with a Lesbian friend who works for Rainbow Labor I am actually starting to take the idea of the "Rainbow Nationals" more seriously.
Given the social and economic situation of Tasmania, and the local State voting system it could be a goer. Maybe not actually get a seat although you never know here, but at least give people a voice.
First thing would be to find out how to register the name I guess. Hopefully there will be further posts. :)
Karen.
Jumping in late.
With a simple statement.
I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But I also have some radical ideas on welfare and homelessness
Which is why I voted with clear conscious for Gary Johnson, and would do so again.
I want our government out of foreign military affairs unless we are attacked(Iraqi war I backed, the subsequent two wars after I protested).
I want our welfare recipients working, but I want them to also get free daycare. Solution, train some welfare recipients to be daycare workers, put able bodied ones to work on our aging and often failing infrastructure. Make them take drug tests, on THEIR dime if they want their job and check.
Give homeless people access to the millions of unbought foreclosed homes, for free, IF they work for the government on, again, our failing infrastructure. Kick em out if they don't work.
Eliminate things like tax credits and tax loop holes/rebates. Eliminate the tax bonus on *donated* and *charity* stuff, it defeats the *goodwill* aspect of it. Tax everyone at a flat rate, and don't give it back.
Stop paying people to have kids. Child tax credit, child care credit, EIC...just a bunch of hoopla to give more money back than put in.
Yup, I am an odd one.
Quote from: UCBerkeleyPostop on November 22, 2012, 11:41:13 AM
Please define what you mean by mercantilism, it is a term applied to pre-Adam Smith, pre-laissez faire France. Louis XVI finance minister instituted mercantilism. I think you might be talking about Keynsian or Neo-Keynesian economics, which is exactly what this country needs.
Yes, that's what I mean. It's when big business is in bed with big government and success or failure in business stops being about doing a good job providing for a market need and becomes about lobbying for fat government contracts or for favorable (to your business) regulations, regulations that shut out your competition, price controls that favor you over your competition, etc. People who fear greedy, powerful people and don't fear that power structure, I have a hard time relating to. It is the epitome of greed and corruption.
It's when big business is in bed with big government and success or failure in business stops being about doing a good job providing for a market need and becomes about lobbying for fat government contracts or for favorable (to your business) regulations, regulations that shut out your competition, price controls that favor you over your competition, etc. People who fear greedy, powerful people and don't fear that power structure, I have a hard time relating to. It is the epitome of greed and corruption.
And when wasn't that true. No matter how you define it, government and business are Siamese Twins joined at the hip. What often is good for one, is good (to a degree) for the other.
a good job providing for a market need
I'm interested in how much (or little) of any of the mountains of stuff that is being produced is really a 'market need' or is it all just a controlled, implanted desire.
or for favorable (to your business) regulations, regulations that shut out your competition, price controls that favor you over your competition,
Why not? Obviously, competition - particularly the unfettered kind we unleash so well - is massively wasteful. Money spend in a business on competition has negative economic impact as opposed to money spend on capital improvements or inventory. And - its' bad for business when some fly-by-night, greedy, quick-buck artist gets going and ends up creating lots of bad press and bad feelings. And lots of stuff that is sold is dangerous in some way, and that requires regulation too. After all if the Teddy Bear was stuffed with toxic waste, or stuff that went up in flames faster than a joint at a Jerry Show, or had small parts that kids could eat - well we want that regulated. Guns, not so much.
Quote from: tekla on November 26, 2012, 01:20:09 PM
Money spend in a business on competition has negative economic impact as opposed to money spend on capital improvements or inventory.
I don't think about it in terms of some money is spent "on competition" and other money is spent on actually running the business like they are two different categories. That's a strange way of charging the word with negative emotion. Having choices is an integral factor of being free and the fact that more than one company will be providing similar things means that competition is a fact of reality, and that fact means they have a particular incentive to run their business well, provide a good product at a good price.
QuoteAnd - its' bad for business when some fly-by-night, greedy, quick-buck artist gets going and ends up creating lots of bad press and bad feelings. And lots of stuff that is sold is dangerous in some way, and that requires regulation too. After all if the Teddy Bear was stuffed with toxic waste, or stuff that went up in flames faster than a joint at a Jerry Show, or had small parts that kids could eat - well we want that regulated. Guns, not so much.
It sounds like you're constructing a strawman here. I was merely pointing out that you can follow the big money and see how a lot of what is passed off as economic stimulus or protective regulations is actually favors that serve the wealthy and powerful people who paid for those favors. I would be less critical of Keynesian economics if, in actual practice, I saw contracts going to lots of promising small companies with lots of potential to expand jobs and choices if they just had a little capitol to get going. But like I said, you can usually follow the money and see that it almost always amounts to some kind of corporate welfare that has been paid for. And if you really want to see waste, shovel government money into a business that has been run poorly but is "too big to fail".
On further thought, I don't think you're trying to strawman me per se. More likely it's accidental. I wasn't trying to make an argument against all regulation. The point is there are regulations sincerely intended to protect people and then there are those that serve certain powerful interests and do more harm than good. And it's only one example of mercantilism. When I use that word I mean businesses buying the power of government to serve their interests against the interests of the general public. A lot of "conservatives" don't have a problem with this as they believe in some form of trickle down economics and that this B.S. will somehow indirectly help the little guy. I don't consider myself a conservative.
I wonder if I could add a perspective from the UK.
Firstly it is quite inspiring that people in the USA voted to give Obama another term, only a few decades after the end of segregation. He symbolises hope for the future and was the overwhelming preference of europeans.
However politically he would easily be a member of one of the right wing parties in Europe. In the UK the Conservative government officially supports gay marriage while attacking working people's jobs and conditions.
As regards the Health Service, which is being destroyed in England but not in Wales where we have a left government, it is overwhelmingly supported. In my particular case I can phone my local doctors' group practice and get an appointment that day, if serious. I can see the doctor after waiting a short time in the waiting room and be prescribed medicine to be collected the same day or have further tests or be referred to a specialist. All of this is free, even prescriptions in Wales.
The
Quote from: LilyoftheValley on September 10, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
Just wondering if anybody is in the same boat as i am, i do identify as MTF but politically i fall into the conservative end of the spectrum, i am deeply saddened by their lack of support and sometimes utter resistance to us, but in honesty i believe their economic, environmental, and other various standpoints just make far more sense than the Democrats, also i believe that the democratic politicians are willing to say anything for our votes, and i dont really believe that they truly give a damn about us, just our voting power. If only there were republicans who could show us some support, that would certainly be interesting, a far more poweful libertarian party, in my opinion, could really help out the USA. Reading about health care in socialistic countries, and the long waits everybody faces just to see a doctor, doesnt really make obamacare sound too appealing to me, because in reality, no matter what is on paper in Obamacare, it faces the realitiess of: limited doctors, limited supply chains, and government intrusion.
Not really. This is the ignorant standpoint of pro-republican types who think that public health care is the devil, yet they never look at the things that stand in the way of a fully effective public health care system in countries that have them. For example, here in Canada we actually have a pretty good healthcare system. The issue that results usually in shortages is the fact that it takes time to develop a proper medical system (anywhere, under any system, for that matter). Under Liberal or NDP rule public health care begins to gain traction and develops, but because Canada tends to be a country that is easily swayed by "rah rah, we'll lower your taxes" conservative rhetoric (not taking into consideration that lower taxes are meaningless when you have no public services, and you end up paying more in the long run without them) and so every few election years people vote conservative. Voting conservative then kick starts a decline in public health care services with employment cuts and other damages done that can prolong wait times. And so the these are not symptoms of public healthcare itself, but of the fact that conservatives keep trying to privatise healthcare every chance they get.
Additionally, these privatisation arguments are written from an extremely classist perspective, and usually by people who have some kind of coverage through their workplace. It doesn't take into account the countless people who cannot access privatised healthcare at all even for an annual physical. Conservatism will always favour the socially privileged over everyone else.
Honestly what really gets me when LGBT folks talk about "oh well, if only conservatives would be more accepting of us, conservative parties would be such a better option!" is they really forget that there is any other marginalised people in their own nations. Conservatism typically comes with anti-immigrant, anti-poverty, pro-private education, pro-private healthcare, anti-choice, pro-prison expansion, anti-rehabilitation, generally anti-social service policies in addition to being sexist, homophobic and transphobic. Social services are there not only for the average person who needs them (because not even most middle class families would be able to go for a physical annually under a private healthcare system), but in recognition that without it you are effectively further damning anyone who cannot access those services otherwise. It is at least partially recognising the way oppression works, and partially recognising that the government and society do need to tip the scales to even begin creating equality after centuries of oppression. You are failing to recognise that not everyone is born into a situation where they can access the same opportunities as wealthier members of the population.
Quote from: LilyoftheValley on September 10, 2012, 06:57:08 PMHearing stories of transgendered people in other countries with government provided health care having to wait YEARS just to get on HRT shows me that government health care is a load of crap.
Would you mind giving some kind of source for this information? As someone happily living in a country with a public healthcare system, I've never heard of anyone waiting "years" just to get on HRT. In fact, we usually get it faster.
According to natural law theory, some of the most basic natural (human) rights, as defined by Locke, are the rights to :life, liberty, and property." Locke wrote, "Reason, which is that Law teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." Thomas Jefferson famously reformated that concept in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Your right to life is a guarantee that you "own" yourself - that you control you own person. The right to liberty ensures that you can follow your own will, in the absence of law, and that you will not be subject to the arbitrary will of another. The right of property means that you benefit from the sweat of your brow, and of your ideas or ingenuity.
The problem with modern "socialism" is that a great number of people feel entitled to live off of the effort and possessions of others. Concepts, such as the "redistribution of wealth," are antithetical the the basic premises of natural law theory. Governments are instituted to provide justice and to defend the society that created them. Anything beyond that smacks of tyranny.
Quote from: Jamie D on December 01, 2012, 11:50:39 AM
According to natural law theory, some of the most basic natural (human) rights, as defined by Locke, are the rights to :life, liberty, and property." Locke wrote, Reason, which is that Law teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." Thomas Jefferson famously reformated that concept in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Your right to life is a guarantee that you "own" yourself - that you control you own person. The right to liberty ensures that you can follow your own will, in the absence of law, and that you will not be subject to the arbitrary will of another. The right of property means that you benefit from the sweat of your brow, and of your ideas or ingenuity.
The problem with modern "socialism" is that a great number of people feel entitled to live off of the effort and possessions of others. Concepts, such as the "redistribution of wealth," are antithetical the the basic premises of natural law theory. Governments are instituted to provide justice and to defend the society that created them. Anything beyond that smacks of tyranny.
Agreed with the caveat that the means and sources by which many people and corporations (specially) gain "property," while legal it is immoral and based on exploiting and abusing other fellow humans. And let me remind you that I am talking about the 1% here, not you pop-n-mom small business, or rich lawyers or doctors, but the individuals and corporations who through their "property" lobby congress to pass laws that allows them to exploit and abuse the "costumer." Case in point the APR that credit cards charge, up to 35%. Yet in the 1930's the feds went after people who charged more than 15% interests in loaned people for USERY.
Quote from: Jamie D on December 01, 2012, 11:50:39 AM
The problem with modern "socialism" is that a great number of people feel entitled to live off of the effort and possessions of others. Concepts, such as the "redistribution of wealth," are antithetical the the basic premises of natural law theory. Governments are instituted to provide justice and to defend the society that created them. Anything beyond that smacks of tyranny.
I do hope humans have evolved beyond "survival of the fittest" mentality, which a lot of the conservative rhetoric sounds like to me.
Also, without some "socialist" component to our government, there would be no roads, police, port authority etc that a lot of business depends on for them to be successful. Those businesses would not be successful in a vacuum, they depend on the services the government supplies to make a profit. I also don't want to see us revert back to what working conditions were like in the late 1800's. With zero regulation, that is likely what would happen. Of course the 1% would become even richer but in that time of zero regulation did we see the middle class expend or "trickle down" economics? It wasn't until the unions got organized and forced the wage increases, that the middle class even came into existence.
I do agree there are -some- (but not 'a great number of people') who can work but are lazy and don't. But I don't think it's fine to punish the people who can't work, for whatever reason, to get at the minority who are just lazy. All you end up with there is more homeless and poverty stricken children who will never have a chance to get out of that cycle.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/ (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/)
We should be ashamed we lead the developed world with a 23% rate. That is 1 in 5 kids lives in below poverty level conditions and people want to cut the funds so more will be below this level?
Quote from: Stephe on December 02, 2012, 01:41:49 AM
I do agree there are -some- (but not 'a great number of people') who can work but are lazy and don't. But I don't think it's fine to punish the people who can't work, for whatever reason, to get at the minority who are just lazy. All you end up with there is more homeless and poverty stricken children who will never have a chance to get out of that cycle.
We should be ashamed we lead the developed world with a 23% rate. That is 1 in 5 kids lives in below poverty level conditions and people want to cut the funds so more will be below this level?
The real question is how do you break the cycle? Does it really help people to get out of the cycle,when those that truly need it have to deal with multiple agencies and programs? Streamline the system and it can be far more cost effective and can deal with the whole person and not in bits and pieces. Is it really going to get someone out of the cycle,dealing with multiple meetings every month as oppose to a single meeting on a monthly basis,or because of the way it's set up it's already doomed to failure?
When they use a broad based figure to say that 23%,is that based on a single figure that does not take into account the difference between someone living in New York City and someone living in Helena,MT? Does it also factor in those who choose to live a simpler lifestyle? Does it include groups like the Amish,whom the government would most likely include because they don't want or need all the stuff,or others who have chosen to live off the land and don't really need the same amount of money to get by and they are satisfied with their lives? Do they consider themselves to be in poverty,or is it that the government says so because of a certain viewpoint? And is our perception of what is poverty now the same as it was in as recently as the 1930's during the depression? When was the last time someone died because of starvation outside of the very old or very young due to neglet? It doesn't mean that it can't be better but it seems that it has come a long ways from where it once was.
Perhaps part of the perceived problems come from the times when people that are working,whom are struggling and paying taxes see those who are on government assistance can go into a grocery store and get steak,lobster and other higher end food stuffs and they can only afford ground chuck.
It gives the appearance that things are a bit out of whack. It should be enough to get by but not enough to want to make it a lifestyle. Where is the incentive to get off of it if one is better off being on assistance then by getting a job? Change the parameters that would give them incentives to take a job instead of penalizing them,make it so that if they are working at a Walmart that they would be better off with the job then without it. People are far more willing to help out when they see someone trying as opposed to seeing a leech. I think just change the perspective and how some things are done would help a whole lot and would be far better in the long run.
The system we have needs a rework to make it better for those that are in need and for those paying into it. Can it be done? Of course but will the politicians do it? Therein lies the problem.
And a question and challenge for the wealthy politicians who are suppose to be our leaders. If you are so bold to say you want the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes,perhaps it would be nice for you to lead by example,show us how you would reform the deductions by example. How you would be willing to pay your fair share,after all you are the ones that wrote the tax code. Pay your fair as you say you want others to do. Quit the whining and crying and always coming up with it's the other guy. Do it yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 02, 2012, 05:44:57 AM
Quit the whining and crying and always coming up with it's the other guy. Do it yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.
You assume I am a lower income person (bad move). Yes raising the tax "for the wealthy" would make my taxes go up.
And do you honestly believe all people on Gov assistance are buying steak and lobster?
As far as "put your money where your mouth is", last year I gave $5,000 to the local homeless shelter, what exactly have you done to help the poor lately? I also volunteer 10-15 hours a week tutoring under privileged kids. Don't assume when someone says "The wealthy should be taxed more" it's a low income person wanting someone else to take care of this. And if you don't believe there is a SERIOUS problem with the % of children living in below poverty level conditions, you really should get out more often. I find it comical you seem to judge poverty as people dying from starvation.
Beatles All You Need Is Love-colorized Anthology Version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOva-VJXJJQ#)
Quote from: Stephe on December 03, 2012, 12:07:29 AM
You assume I am a lower income person (bad move). Yes raising the tax "for the wealthy" would make my taxes go up.
Unless you're a politician I was not referring to you. I just think when you have some politicians that don't even file their taxes,or after getting out of office speak up about others paying higher tax rates but do not do so themselves are a bit disingenuous.
Quote from: Stephe on December 03, 2012, 12:07:29 AM
And do you honestly believe all people on Gov assistance are buying steak and lobster?
There are enough that do,that it gives the appearance that things are out of whack. It's a lack of accountability. It's hard to really know what is happening with a person in need if you have five or six different case workers trying to help one person and you have overlap with the different programs.
Quote from: Stephe on December 03, 2012, 12:07:29 AM
As far as "put your money where your mouth is", last year I gave $5,000 to the local homeless shelter, what exactly have you done to help the poor lately? I also volunteer 10-15 hours a week tutoring under privileged kids. Don't assume when someone says "The wealthy should be taxed more" it's a low income person wanting someone else to take care of this. And if you don't believe there is a SERIOUS problem with the % of children living in below poverty level conditions, you really should get out more often. I find it comical you seem to judge poverty as people dying from starvation.
Good for you,you are in a situation where you can do that. I never said that it was the poor talking about it. Do you not find it ironic that guys like Warren Buffet can talk about taxes being raised on the rich yet will turn around and fight the government on their business about their tax return? Or the fact that they claim every deduction they are entitled to,instead of claiming half of their deductions. The government does not require any one to claim every single deduction,the deductions one chooses to claim is up to the person filing the taxes. Income yes,deductions no.
Sorry Stephe, I am speaking from the other side of this. With my income,five out the last seven years I would be considered under the poverty level. I take very serious one thing,whatever I do it is between me,the Lord and the person,and is no one else's business. Just because my income level is in that range does it mean I am actually in poverty? No one looking at where I live,what I drive,and what I have,could ever say that I am truly in poverty. I am cash poor but not in poverty.
The point was that we have gotten to the point where our definition of what poverty is in this country is not the same as it was in the late 1800's,1930's or even in comparison to places such as the Congo,Zaire,or other third world countries. Are the basic needs being met? Do they have air,water,food,clothing,shelter, basic transportation,and a chance for education?
Coming from the other side,try living and raising a family of four on minimum wage. Been there did that,I do know what it's like and what it takes to get out of it. At one point we were three months behind in rent and electric bills. Our church at that time did help us with the rent. Basic transportation $100 junkers,at least two of them should have been junked before we got them. (ran them till they died) We did get some help but still ended going bankrupt,got two new jobs and at one point was working full time at both up to 120 hours a week,paid off the bankruptcy six months early. Being poor sucks,no two ways about it. We may not have had much but we had clothes on our backs,food on the table,a roof over our heads,jobs,and each other. We had what we needed not what we wanted.
One of the concepts I truly believe in is this "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Food pantries and other short term things like that do a good job for those caught in a temporary bind,but they really can not address the long term in that they in and of themselves break the cycle of dependency. It's why I really like the concept of Heifer International. Provide a means for someone to learn how to make an income,pass on some of what you received as it grows,and break the cycle.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 02, 2012, 05:44:57 AM
Perhaps part of the perceived problems come from the times when people that are working,whom are struggling and paying taxes see those who are on government assistance can go into a grocery store and get steak,lobster and other higher end food stuffs and they can only afford ground chuck.
What? Govt. assistance is nowhere near enough to afford that kind of stuff, unless it's on a super sale or something. ???
If it matters, I don't think poverty should mean people dying from starvation. Poverty definitions should be more lenient because that would indicate that someone is in potential of having a problem before the problem becomes serious.
Plus, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a couple of desires as long as they aren't excessive, such as how the government went into a financial crisis because people took loans on houses they couldn't dream of affording. Saying that everyone should just get over wanting anything because you did is like me telling you to stop complaining about how hard multi-variable calculus is simply because I find it to be easy. :P
Quote from: DianaP on December 03, 2012, 03:13:05 PM
What? Govt. assistance is nowhere near enough to afford that kind of stuff, unless it's on a super sale or something. ???
I have seen it first hand. One of my brothers and one of my sisters were doing just that. They knew how to game the system. I have also seen those who have loaded up their grocery carts and pay for them all using their food stamps. It's not in all cases but it does happen.
Quote from: DianaP on December 03, 2012, 03:13:05 PM
If it matters, I don't think poverty should mean people dying from starvation. Poverty definitions should be more lenient because that would indicate that someone is in potential of having a problem before the problem becomes serious.
If I came across that way I do apologize because that is far from what I mean. People need far more than just food. I do agree needs include air,food,water,shelter,clothing,transportation of some form,something a bit better than just basic education,and access to some form of health care. One of the problems is taking a single figure and applying it across the board. Does $11,000 go as far in New York City,as it does in Milwaukee,WI, or does either go as far as it would in a place like Butte,MT?
Quote from: DianaP on December 03, 2012, 03:13:05 PM
Plus, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a couple of desires as long as they aren't excessive, such as how the government went into a financial crisis because people took loans on houses they couldn't dream of affording. Saying that everyone should just get over wanting anything because you did is like me telling you to stop complaining about how hard multi-variable calculus is simply because I find it to be easy. :P
I still had wants,but sometimes those wants have to be put on hold. Just because I would like a Martin D-45 Authentic 1942,Brazilian Rosewood 6 string acoustic guitar at $59,999 doesn't mean someone else should fund it for me. Nor does it mean that one should expect taxpayers to fund wants. And the question is where do you draw the line between needs and wants? I have no problem with the government taxing for the needs to be met,I have a hard time with the wants.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 03, 2012, 05:01:02 PM
I still had wants,but sometimes those wants have to be put on hold. Just because I would like a Martin D-45 Authentic 1942,Brazilian Rosewood 6 string acoustic guitar at $59,999 doesn't mean someone else should fund it for me. Nor does it mean that one should expect taxpayers to fund wants. And the question is where do you draw the line between needs and wants? I have no problem with the government taxing for the needs to be met,I have a hard time with the wants.
I think we can agree on that one. :)
I would like a Martin D-45 Authentic 1942,Brazilian Rosewood 6 string acoustic guitar at $59,999 doesn't mean someone else should fund it for me.
If you only want one no-one is going to fund it, because it's a completely unnecessary expense. If you need it there are lots of ways to fund it, and yeah, you can get the government to pitch in, because there is only one way you are going to need it, and that's because your making music (specifically recording - it's not like your going to take that on the road) where the cost of such an instrument is justified. And, it's cost is justified as a business expense it's hence a tax deduction.
But where do you cross the line between meeting needs and meetings wants? Is it one outfit,two,five,ten? Is it one,two,or three coats and the same number of pairs of shoes? Is it having food for one day,a week,six months,or a year? Is it employable education or an education that goes above and beyond that?
I know this may sound crazy but what if more was put into preventative health care? Two of the biggest problems with health in the US is due to lack of exercise and poor diet. Part of it I believe could be dealt with for about $15 billion but in the long run it would save multiple times that amount.
Solve half of it by providing a wii and wii fit for every household. (What's $15 billion in the US government budget anyways) I think these types of things would be money far better spent than dealing with the consequences,which is far more often to cost far more in the long run.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 03, 2012, 05:50:51 AM
The point was that we have gotten to the point where our definition of what poverty is in this country is not the same as it was in the late 1800's,1930's or even in comparison to places such as the Congo,Zaire,or other third world countries. Are the basic needs being met? Do they have air,water,food,clothing,shelter, basic transportation,and a chance for education?
No one was saying the US is below 3rd world countries, I was talking about developed countries. And for most people "below poverty level" usually means the above things on your list are not being met. You even stated if the church hadn't helped you out you would have been homeless. And most kids living in those conditions are going to have a tough time with education, especially if they don't have enough to eat, are homeless etc. And sure, there are people who "work the system" but I doubt that is more than a small % of the people on gov assistance. There are slimy people looking for the easy way out everywhere and you can't punish the majority of the population trying to stop those people. It would be no different to say "Lets throw everyone in jail because some people shop lift" as a way of stopping that.
No one was saying the US is below 3rd world countries
There are places and populations inside the United States that are basically 3rd World, and they are growing. Some like the really impoverished Native reservations have been like that for over 100 years now. I've watched in a combination of disbelief and horror over the past 20 years as the homeless population has mushroomed and now seems on the verge of becoming a permanent and intractable condition. There are many things that can be done to change that, but they take effort and money and no one seems to think it's worth it anymore.
Two of the biggest problems with health in the US is due to lack of exercise and poor diet
Yeah, and that's a totally self-inflicted wound. And I should care why? And moreover - and here's where a huge part of the conservative argument worked, at least back when they let non-insane people articulate it - why are they now entitled to my money because they were lazy and got fat and couldn't be bothered to eat right? So their life sucks now. So what? And, most of the people I've personally known who have been successful at changing that condition in their lives needed nothing more than the basic will power to stop vegging and get up off the couch and a pair of shoes to start walking.
Quote from: tekla on December 05, 2012, 12:50:29 AM
Two of the biggest problems with health in the US is due to lack of exercise and poor diet
Yeah, and that's a totally self-inflicted wound. And I should care why? And moreover - and here's where a huge part of the conservative argument worked, at least back when they let non-insane people articulate it - why are they now entitled to my money because they were lazy and got fat and couldn't be bothered to eat right? So their life sucks now. So what? And, most of the people I've personally known who have been successful at changing that condition in their lives needed nothing more than the basic will power to stop vegging and get up off the couch and a pair of shoes to start walking.
But the problem is that you already are to a point funding them. Through insurance premiums and through taxes. Isn't that what insurance does take healthy people paying into a system to fund unhealthy people? Doesn't Medicare and Medicaid do so also? If so you are paying for them whether you like it or not. (I do not mean all that use those have had an unhealthy lifestyle)
But take a hypothetical,I smoke and should get lung cancer. Should I then expect you by paying into insurance to cover my treatments because of my lifestyle,just because I can't afford them on my own? Am I not the one that made that choice? Is it not the consequence of my actions? Shouldn't I have to deal with them? (I can say this because I do still smoke) I can not in any way expect that you would take care of something that is by my own personal choice. If you choose to out of care for me that's one thing,but to force you to do so is just not right.
Quote from: Stephe on December 05, 2012, 12:03:20 AM
No one was saying the US is below 3rd world countries, I was talking about developed countries. And for most people "below poverty level" usually means the above things on your list are not being met. You even stated if the church hadn't helped you out you would have been homeless. And most kids living in those conditions are going to have a tough time with education, especially if they don't have enough to eat, are homeless etc. And sure, there are people who "work the system" but I doubt that is more than a small % of the people on gov assistance. There are slimy people looking for the easy way out everywhere and you can't punish the majority of the population trying to stop those people. It would be no different to say "Lets throw everyone in jail because some people shop lift" as a way of stopping that.
I do agree. I just think that if some of the system was tweaked to be more effective, simplified,
and not duplicated services. I would not be surprised to find out that as much as 20 - 25% of the US budget is tied up in waste,fraud, and inefficiencies. But it seems like those issues are never really tackled. If it so we could do so much more with what is being paid into the US treasury.
I am not advocating getting rid of the programs,I just think changing some things could make it better.
I am not saying that poverty doesn't exist in his country,far from it. But we have come a long ways from what it once was. There is a lot more to be done. Tekla is right we do have other areas besides the reservations that do live close to or are in 3rd world situations. Some areas of the Appalachians,some areas of the South,it's not just in the cities. And can we really expect the government to do it all or does some of it need to be on a one to one level? Is it just the government that is suppose to take care of it all?
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 05, 2012, 05:57:11 AM
I do agree. I just think that if some of the system was tweaked to be more effective, simplified,
and not duplicated services. I would not be surprised to find out that as much as 20 - 25% of the US budget is tied up in waste,fraud, and inefficiencies. But it seems like those issues are never really tackled. If it so we could do so much more with what is being paid into the US treasury.
I am not advocating getting rid of the programs,I just think changing some things could make it better.
I am not saying that poverty doesn't exist in his country,far from it. But we have come a long ways from what it once was. There is a lot more to be done. Tekla is right we do have other areas besides the reservations that do live close to or are in 3rd world situations. Some areas of the Appalachians,some areas of the South,it's not just in the cities. And can we really expect the government to do it all or does some of it need to be on a one to one level? Is it just the government that is suppose to take care of it all?
Well we had no problem spending 1 trillion in Iraq, much of which was spent rebuilding what we just blew up... :)
Quote from: Stephe on December 05, 2012, 09:29:47 AM
Well we had no problem spending 1 trillion in Iraq, much of which was spent rebuilding what we just blew up... :)
Nothing like bombing someones else's country when we have major issues here. The only good thing is that the defense contractors kept busy. :P
That money was borrowed. A trillion dollars owed to China and some other countries. :(
Quote from: DianaP on December 05, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
That money was borrowed. A trillion dollars owed to China and some other countries. :(
And we are going to be paying it off for years. And we will end up questioning the wisdom of the decision,questioning the cost of that decision,finding out the long term consequences of that decision,and wondering if it all really made that much of a difference. And did we really learn anything from the French,the British and the Soviet Union from the way they did things in those areas. (IE Vietnam,Afghanistan and the Middle East) :P
I'm moving back to Ecuador...
It's not all bad,it's just a very difficult time that will take wisdom to get through it.
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 05, 2012, 06:37:36 PM
It's not all bad,it's just a very difficult time that will take wisdom to get through it.
*Thinks about American politicians*
Yeah, I'm moving back to Ecuador...
Quote from: DianaP on December 05, 2012, 07:01:43 PM
*Thinks about American politicians*
Yeah, I'm moving back to Ecuador...
Good point. ::)
Quote from: SarahM777 on December 05, 2012, 05:43:01 PM
And we are going to be paying it off for years.
They'll never pay it off. Never. I say "they" because I don't feel at all associated with the decisions National politicians make. I certainly don't approve. There's no way it's mathematically possible unless they suddenly close all their military bases around the world or something similarly drastic that politicians will not even begin to consider for a moment. There's a good video out there somewhere that does the math and even if they start taxing the rich at 100%, literally take ALL of their income, it won't even pay for recent new programs, much less fund the entire government at the size it's at, MUCH LESS pay off the debt.
They can twiddle numbers around all they want and keeping taxing to pay the interest (that's all income tax currently pays, btw--interest on the debt, and it won't even be able to keep up with that indefinitely for the obvious reasons above) but American Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are rapidly becoming a joke. It starts with massive inflation, the hidden tax that affects the poor and middle class first and foremost, and then something pops big time and our lifestyles suddenly take a dive when no one will lend the U.S. money anymore because they know it will be paid back with monopoly money.
I think the common fallacy with economics is to obsess over numbers and paper. You have to think of money as just something that facilitates the trade of actual goods and services. The paper and numbers have no meaning or power beyond our own trust in it. Numbers and paper aren't actual wealth. Wealth is when goods and services are abundant. You can't transform a pile of paper into food and clothing. You can't take computers and shift some electrons around to move numbers from one person's account to another and expect resources to appear out of thin air. Money is a contract, a promise that if you do something for me now, you will get some service or goods later, but a contract is only valuable to the extent that it is honored consistently. That trust is fizzling away in so many ways--inflation/devaluation of the currency, borrowing money that you know can't be repaid, exorbitant taxation...
Something has to give. I don't know what exactly it's going to be, but the economy is definitely running on a shell game right now and we're in for a rude awakening when the reality of it all hits us. I'm starting to reconsider whether I should start hoarding food!
Honestly, conservatives are stupid, liberals are stupid, and anyone who thinks that he/she fits perfectly in one of those categories is mentally deranged. The system can't work one way or the other; there has to be something in the middle.
I for one have things about myself, political or otherwise, that would be considered liberal and others that would be labeled conservative. I favor the death penalty for any prisoner who receives a sentence of life in prison (save some money while we're at it); I favor raising the taxes of the wealthy; I favor a woman's right to choose to have an abortion; I favor pulling the troops out of the petty wars the US are in right now; I favor cracking down on crime; I favor marijuana legalization (that's a good financial move since it would then be taxable and the ADA won't be hunting down potheads anymore); I think that a lady shouldn't wear shorts that might as well be underwear (Not political, I know); I think that gay people should be allowed to marry (Extra weddings are good for small businesses.)
I just came up with a few ways to save the US a ton of money without any detriments, yet none of these changes are coming. My point is that petty politics and the American inability to compromise and give up some luxuries are the real problems. Hmph. >:(
libertarian here... almost anarcho cap... just haven't learned enough to make the switch yet :)
both democrats and republicans cans suck my... ha ~ you know
I am a proud lifelong liberal democrat and always will be ymmv.
Unfortunately I live in a god-awful conservative bible thumpin' assbackwards state that I hate and hopefully I can move to a blue state in near furure.
we all know monopolies are Bad! why do we give big gov monopolies on things like
police
education
currency
roads
etc...
all monopolies do is screw it up and are terribly inefficient in the process... its time we privatize and add competition!
Govt. healthcare isn't crap, but TG care is. Not many countries are as liberal about it as the US is. Govt. healthcare places priorities. Transgender healthcare is actually pretty simple by comparison to other medical care and can be taken care of easily, but there are people out there that are in power and don't want to make that happen. It's like gay marriage in the sense that it's so easy and that there are no significant detriments, but people don't want to let it happen. Those people happen to be conservative. Government healthcare is actually better. Remember that A LOT of people can't afford health insurance. Even those that do don't get coverage on a lot of things due to the rules of private insurance companies.
Note that I'm neither liberal nor conservative. Both sides are stupid. You can't pick as side before you hear an issue, or you'll be forced to defend things you don't believe in. I prefer to look at issues individually.
Quote from: oZma on February 05, 2013, 04:36:45 PM
we all know monopolies are Bad! why do we give big gov monopolies on things like
police
education
currency
roads
etc...
all monopolies do is screw it up and are terribly inefficient in the process... its time we privatize and add competition!
What?! As someone who has been on fire department and private ambulances, I can say that there are things that you should NEVER privatize. EVER!
because big gov cares about you? LOL right
gov shouldn't do ANYTHING except protect my rights
private fire fighters? if there is a demand for something, someone will supply it :-) and with supply comes competition (unless you're gov) and competition brings prosperity! :-)
gov cannot supply prosperous services because you need competition to make things better! gov is anti competition
a little article by one of my libertarian heros, John Stossel, questioning why US forest services don't use the best flame suppressant when fighting fires... hmmm maybe because there isn't any competition? why make things better? if its not broke, don't fix it? I say we let the free market decide the best way to fight fires!
http://www.geltechsolutions.com/fox-business-networks-john-stossel-interviews-gelt (http://www.geltechsolutions.com/fox-business-networks-john-stossel-interviews-gelt)
don't be scared John is on fox... I know you democrats love to hate fox and while I understand the disdain, Stossel is the man!
Okay. I'm not a democrat, mind you. :P
You talk as though private companies use the best material possible. That's far from the truth. Apple can afford to sell their stuff for a lot less and it has the technology to make much better gadgets, but it progresses its gadget lines slowly to dupe the masses into buying new gadgets every few months and to milk this I-Phone thing for as much as it's got. Not to mention that the little logo somehow makes the product twice as expensive as others without a big name, which do the same exact thing. :eusa_think:
The motivation behind a completely free market economy is money, and that's no good. There have been several inadequacies in products, leading to many lawsuits simply because private businesses want to save money. Not to mention that the govt. is responsible for most businesses. Private companies often need bailouts and people need loans to start them, often from the government. Roads, highways, bridges, and maintenance of public facilities rely on govt. Private businesses could never afford what a country can. You can't just take the benefits and then disregard govt.
Govt. regulations protect people from contaminated water supplies, since many business owners would dump their garbage in the cheapest, yet most hazardous, way possible in order to save money. Not to mention that businesses have not proven to be adaptable to use better products. That's what the US car industry has shown us, and is why Japanese cars were receiving better sales.
Let's also not forget that private business that went about without govt. has brought on the Great Depression.
Ozma, I'm not trying to get into an argument about anything, since I just left another forum because of their penchant for arguments. That said, even Adam Smith the found of economic liberalism has said that "there are some tasks so monumental only the government can do them." I don't think competition is necessary everywhere, especially on things like fire departments, police, or education in which those who can pay reap the benefits and those who can't are up the river. Let alone the private market's drive for maximizing profits could very well come via cutting services provided.
For what little it's worth, I consider myself a left leaning libertarian. I just don't believe that the government is some boogey man that can't do anything right and I will defer to the government when there is evidence the government can do better than the private sector.
Quote from: DianaP on February 05, 2013, 05:33:24 PM
Okay. I'm not a democrat, mind you. :P
You talk as though private companies use the best material possible. That's far from the truth. Apple can afford to sell their stuff for a lot less and it has the technology to make much better gadgets, but it progresses its gadget lines slowly to dupe the masses into buying new gadgets every few months and to milk this I-Phone thing for as much as it's got. Not to mention that the little logo somehow makes the product twice as expensive as others without a big name, which do the same exact thing. :eusa_think:
The motivation behind a completely free market economy is money, and that's no good. There have been several inadequacies in products, leading to many lawsuits simply because private businesses want to save money. Not to mention that the govt. is responsible for most businesses. Private companies often need bailouts and people need loans to start them, often from the government. Roads, highways, bridges, and maintenance of public facilities rely on govt. Private businesses could never afford what a country can. You can't just take the benefits and then disregard govt.
Govt. regulations protect people from contaminated water supplies, since many business owners would dump their garbage in the cheapest, yet most hazardous, way possible in order to save money. Not to mention that businesses have not proven to be adaptable to use better products. That's what the US car industry has shown us, and is why Japanese cars were receiving better sales.
Let's also not forget that private business that went about without govt. has brought on the Great Depression.
let private businesses fail... better ones will replace them
gov regulation is a waste of money and has created an industry of people just to understand and comply with all the rules... these people could have productive jobs! the fact you need to hire lawyers and waste capital to start a business just to UNDERSTAND the rules?! messed up. that capital could be better used by the person starting the business! you like that money going to big gov to make more rules?!
gov DID protect us, I won't argue... but now they aren't needed. after gov solves a problem, they should go away and let private industries take over.
roads? ugh... id rather not pay taxes and pay every time I drove... leave it to people to WANT GOOD roads instead of bad roads so when a road starts to suck, I can take my driving to another. competition.
eBay, Amazon, paypal all exist without gov regulation... how come they don't screw the customers? as consumers, we have choices! don't forget that!
you give gov too much credit... great depression was caused by fed reserve... maybe not entirely but by no means by private industry. did you read that out of one of your government text books? I would do your own research... maybe read this? maybe you believe it, maybe you don't? but the CATO institute is a great think tank :-)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf)
Quote from: Kayla on February 05, 2013, 05:45:35 PM
Ozma, I'm not trying to get into an argument about anything, since I just left another forum because of their penchant for arguments. That said, even Adam Smith the found of economic liberalism has said that "there are some tasks so monumental only the government can do them." I don't think competition is necessary everywhere, especially on things like fire departments, police, or education in which those who can pay reap the benefits and those who can't are up the river. Let alone the private market's drive for maximizing profits could very well come via cutting services provided.
For what little it's worth, I consider myself a left leaning libertarian. I just don't believe that the government is some boogey man that can't do anything right and I will defer to the government when there is evidence the government can do better than the private sector.
I agree... I'm not an anarchist yet LOL
I simply refer to many of these things as they exist now. education would be better without tenure teachers... if we had school choice instead of it based geographically
the gov has its hand in too many cookie jars and we need to point out how inefficient they are so we CAN scale down the size and get the gov to do things it ought to.
id be OK with gov if it were BOTTOM UP planning, not TOP DOWN central planning :-)
Quote from: kkut on February 05, 2013, 05:43:22 PM
You see failed companies as a sign the private sector doesn't work... it shows me it does work. Lousy companies fail, and good ones succeed. Most companies have a life cycle, this is because the larger it becomes the more beaurocratic it becomes (kind of like a mini-government) and is slow to change to the market. It either adapts or it changes and succeeds. Government agencies don't go thru this, they grow bigger and more wasteful and less useful.
I don't see failed companies as a reason why the private sector doesn't work. I'm just saying that private businesses, even the best American car companies, fail because of the same reasons Ozma claimed that govt. doesn't work. Govt. agencies are not wasteful, by the way. I've volunteered on govt. ambulances, and they are very picky about materials. Waste is not an option. Private ambulances rush their jobs because their bosses are breathing down their necks due to the fact that time spent on one call is time not on another, so they make ridiculous time limit regulations for the sake of money.
And bad businesses don't always fail. American cars and banks are just two examples of crappy systems that keep on trucking because they're "too big to fail." Even operating with terrorists doesn't get bank executives arrested. HSBC.
Quote from: oZma on February 05, 2013, 05:49:52 PM
gov regulation is a waste of money and has created an industry of people just to understand and comply with all the rules... these people could have productive jobs! the fact you need to hire lawyers and waste capital to start a business just to UNDERSTAND the rules?! messed up. that capital could be better used by the person starting the business! you like that money going to big gov to make more rules?!
gov DID protect us, I won't argue... but now they aren't needed. after gov solves a problem, they should go away and let private industries take over.
roads? ugh... id rather not pay taxes and pay every time I drove... leave it to people to WANT GOOD roads instead of bad roads so when a road starts to suck, I can take my driving to another. competition.
eBay, Amazon, paypal all exist without gov regulation... how come they don't screw the customers? as consumers, we have choices! don't forget that!
Ebay does screw over customers a lot. You only need some fine print disclaimer, and someone can sell you a picture of an i-pad for $200. I've seen it happen. The great depression was caused by excessive loans from private banks. I read that in a textbook from a PRIVATE COMPANY, by the way. :P
Rules are important. Without them, private businesses will sacrifice for the sake of money. Not to mention that your road analogy is terrible. There are some routes that people must take. Private companies can't afford to maintain the system, so just letting roads go to shambles and using the ones that aren't broken would lead to excess traffic on the good roads, people arriving late to their jobs, and chaos when food deliveries were needed at a specific times, leading to understocked supermarkets.
Quote from: oZma on February 05, 2013, 05:55:16 PM
I agree... I'm not an anarchist yet LOL
I simply refer to many of these things as they exist now. education would be better without tenure teachers... if we had school choice instead of it based geographically
the gov has its hand in too many cookie jars and we need to point out how inefficient they are so we CAN scale down the size and get the gov to do things it ought to.
id be OK with gov if it were BOTTOM UP planning, not TOP DOWN central planning :-)
You can choose schools. I go to school 5 miles from my house. It's not mandated by geography. I would like teacher tenure revoked too, but even private businesses have tenures. Not to mention anyone who's a friend to the boss gets favored.
I won't argue this anymore, simply because I have more important things to do and this takes too much time. Plus, I have volunteered at govt-backed agencies, so I know from experience that govt. is alright. :)
PS--> Ask any fire department ambulance worker, and they will tell you to start on a private ambulance company. The fire department doesn't just take anyone. You need experience, or you just go on the waiting list. Private companies take anybody with a certification. Not exactly encouraging. :P
too big to fail is a gov term and an excuse to bail out
I take it you won't read my Cato institute pdf on the great depression? if you tell me the book that says private investments caused it, I would love to read it and learn your perspective :-)
and not all gov programs are wasteful... but I think most are. you can't plan everything top down... most everything should be bottom up! states rights! LOL
Most school textbooks are private. Campbell, Halliday/Resnick/Walker, etc.
Quote from: oZma on February 05, 2013, 06:06:34 PM
states rights! LOL
States are govt... ::)
Quote from: DianaP on February 05, 2013, 06:08:50 PM
Most school textbooks are private. Campbell, Halliday/Resnick/Walker, etc.
States are govt... ::)
yes, but keep in mind I speak mostly against BIG gov meaning the federal gov. states are a little better, a step in the right direction... but I think we could do without a lot of their 'services' :-)
I thought you said it was a private book, not a government school book?
I guess I figured you actual read a book specifically about it instead of regurgitating history from a high school book
you think gov schools are going to teach their students that gov screws things up? hell no! indoctrination facilities if you ask me LOL
That textbook is used in schools, but it was made privately.
That textbook acknowledged the screw-ups of Andrew Jackson, the US govt. in the US-Mexican War, things like the Patriot Act and the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc.
Technically, though, you're also regurgitating information. In fact, any information stated by anyone is simply a regurgitation of what taught it to him/her. Besides, the author of that story may be indoctrinating you. ;)
Oh yeah, and I did read it. Next time the banks fail, and you get a guaranteed $250,000 security, you can just keep on dissing the New Deal.
Before you chastise govt, try working with it. Also, try reading the book before you criticize it. ;)
LOL, I do work with gov... I work for a private company contacted by state gov :-)
I'll check out the book, you should check out the pdf! :-)
.
and let me guess Andrew Jacksons screw ups... his opposition to central banks maybe?
Quote from: oZma on February 05, 2013, 06:33:06 PM
I'll check out the book, you should check out the pdf! :-)
and let me guess Andrew Jacksons screw ups... his opposition to central banks maybe?
I did read it, and the book emphasized his belief in his right to defy the Supreme Court and his sponsoring of killing Native Americans against said court.
and you don't believe anything the Cato institute says? still just think private industries are to blame? not the fed? not gov? not a combination? hmmmmm I wonder what it means when you have nothing to say about it? maybe it should have been toilet paper?
Quote from: DianaP on February 05, 2013, 06:28:41 PM
Oh yeah, and I did read it. Next time the banks fail, and you get a guaranteed $250,000 security, you can just keep on dissing the New Deal.
That was what I had to say about it. The article said that the New Deal was bad. I say it improved consumer security, regulation of private business that prevents compromise of service for money, and improved working conditions/pay. Of course, WWII pushed America into the black more than the New Deal, but that's to be expected when some of the biggest nations in the world come to a weapon-loving country for product.
you're 'entitled to your opinion but to think that people can control and steer the economy is silly... what's that F A Hayek quote?
"the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design"
the economy is organic... people can't 'fix' it and the only control we have is that we can make it worse by trying to make it better :-)
so there we have it... you think gov can control the economy with things like the 'new deal' while I say things like the 'new deal' made things worse
what's the point of protecting consumers if they don't have any money to buy anything because the gov won't let you hire people below an arbitrary 'minimum wage' and then coerced you into high prices and destroying excess output at the point of a gun?
you can't force people to act, buy, trade, be nice, not do drugs, not speed if they don't want to. the new deal was coercion, violence, forcing people to act against their will... and you say it was a good thing? do ends justify means? no
Minimum wage was set to meet a living standard; it wasn't arbitrary.
Well, I say it was worth it. Whether or not you believe that or not is irrelevant, unless you lead a completely private life.
Quote from: DianaP on February 05, 2013, 07:26:53 PM
Minimm wage was set to meet a living standard; it wasn't arbitrary.
Well, I say it was worth it. Whether or not you believe that or not is irrelevant, unless you lead a completely private life.
minimum wage is a good intention, but negative consequences
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-minimum-wage-good-intentions-bad-results (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-minimum-wage-good-intentions-bad-results)
read that if you like... I'm signing off :-)
American car companies didn't see the need to innovate since the economy was doing well and people bought American cars out of excessive patriotism, not due to pensions. Once it started to go south, people didn't want to be spending money on crappy cars when better ones were across the ocean.
Before Americans started to form unions, they were working in terrible conditions with poor wages. Government intervention did do something to change that, contrary to Ozma's article. I think you may be reading something written by a private businessman who wants to motivate people to defy minimum wage so he/she can make more money. Americans couldn't even afford to live steadily before wages were increased, yet corporate executives were making a lot of money.
Keep thinking what you want, but remember that you're
complaining in comfort, a spoiled action made possible by the govt. You don't actually have it that bad. If you want to see what lack of consideration does to workers and people, go to China.
Quote from: kkut on February 05, 2013, 07:40:17 PM
Don't poo poo the profit motive, life would be miserable without it. History is full of cases of the misery when profit motive and free enterprise is removed from the people.
No, it happened when there was too much corrupt govt. interference, such as in the Soviet Union and China. Private practice has its place, but neither side works perfectly. You must meet in the middle. I already explained America's history before the govt intervened. If you were to have all of govt's benefits seized from you tommorow, you would beg for them back. Believe what you want, but note that the govt does you good, and saying otherwise is very ungrateful.
I'm sure you're not absolutely spoiled. I was speaking relatively. If you asked people in poor nations, they would beg to have your life in a heartbeat. I don't think that govt is perfect. Nothing's perfect. It's just necessary, whether you know it or not.
I actually blame individuals just as much as I do govt for economic downturn. People need to know that you shouldn't try to obtain a house you can't afford. ::)