|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2008 10:39:56 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by karmat:
As a public school teacher, I had a long list of responsibilities. Actually educating your child, in the way that he would learn best and be most productive, was way down on the list. :/ Crowd control, giving instruction, and expecting regurgitated answers was more the norm, unfortunately. |
Both my parents were teachers, I've assisted and done training in the health field, and I have friends who teach both public and private high school.
I agree the things you mention are problems, but ones which are -- I believe -- largely due to the continual starving of the schools, mainly at the expense (sic) of a bloated military budget. A popular bumper sticker out this way reads (aproximately)
It Will Be A Great Day When The Schools Have All The Money They Need,
And The Navy Will Have To Hold A Bake Sale To Buy Another Aircraft Carrier.
=================
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953 |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 10:40:06 PM · #127 |
Spazmo - Sorry, I misunderstood your pov. I guess if anybody disagrees with the socialist viewpoint he is assumed to be brutal and inhuman. You believe that more government is the solution to everybody's problems. I believe less, absolute minimum government is the solution to everybody's problems, in conjunction with true individual compassion, and the freedom to carry it out to the benefit of those the individual sees fit to help. Don't see anything particularly brutal or uncaring about that...unless it's just the fact that I disagree with you and your fellow travelers. And it doesn't matter if you're American or Canadian or European...I still disagree with you.
And whether you're American or from WhoVille, you're still pretty freakin' rude. How does maintaining that "government" cannot prevent you from suffering all of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune make me "brutal" and "disappointing". Like I said, you don't know me, or understand my point of view.
If you want to help the average person obtain proper health care, get the anti-competition restrictions out of it, and instead restrict the trial lawyers a little. Restrict excessive malpractice awards. Open up the competitive markets in INSURANCE COVERAGE. Encourage medical cooperatives and private health care savings accounts. And by all means, lets's encourage the fantastically wealthy to pony up some of that scratch to benefit those without coverage, in the name of public health...voluntarily, of course.
Oh, but then your collective wouldn't have that area of power over people's lives. Sorry...that's just brutal.
And your knee-jerk gut-wrenching reaction to my opinion only shows how totally incapable you are of even considering another point of view. I must have never ever thought about this stuff at all, and I must have a thick skull, big ol' beer belly, overhanging brow and bad teeth and like to torture dogs.
Nuff said. Think about it a little before you tell me how disappointed you are in me...I might be a little disappointed in you, too...y'think?
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:01:35 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
... I guess if anybody disagrees with the socialist viewpoint he is assumed to be... |
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy. Spazmo's POV, IMO, belongs into the area of social democracy (he can correct me, if I'm wrong).
-"Socialism" from "social", original meaning something like "allied with friends".
I wonder how one should label those who hold all people and their welfare in higher esteem than an economy that exploits them?
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 23:13:42. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:35:09 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Spazmo - Sorry, I misunderstood your pov. I guess if anybody disagrees with the socialist viewpoint he is assumed to be brutal and inhuman. You believe that more government is the solution to everybody's problems. I believe less, absolute minimum government is the solution to everybody's problems, in conjunction with true individual compassion, and the freedom to carry it out to the benefit of those the individual sees fit to help. Don't see anything particularly brutal or uncaring about that...unless it's just the fact that I disagree with you and your fellow travelers. And it doesn't matter if you're American or Canadian or European...I still disagree with you.
And whether you're American or from WhoVille, you're still pretty freakin' rude. How does maintaining that "government" cannot prevent you from suffering all of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune make me "brutal" and "disappointing". Like I said, you don't know me, or understand my point of view.
If you want to help the average person obtain proper health care, get the anti-competition restrictions out of it, and instead restrict the trial lawyers a little. Restrict excessive malpractice awards. Open up the competitive markets in INSURANCE COVERAGE. Encourage medical cooperatives and private health care savings accounts. And by all means, lets's encourage the fantastically wealthy to pony up some of that scratch to benefit those without coverage, in the name of public health...voluntarily, of course.
Oh, but then your collective wouldn't have that area of power over people's lives. Sorry...that's just brutal.
And your knee-jerk gut-wrenching reaction to my opinion only shows how totally incapable you are of even considering another point of view. I must have never ever thought about this stuff at all, and I must have a thick skull, big ol' beer belly, overhanging brow and bad teeth and like to torture dogs.
Nuff said. Think about it a little before you tell me how disappointed you are in me...I might be a little disappointed in you, too...y'think? |
It's your "I got mine and I don't give a damn if the rest get any or not" attitude towards those who are less fortunate than you that I find disappointing in another human being and displays your appallingly brutal attitude.
Like I said, I don't know you, so I have no idea if you have a thick skull, big ol' beer belly, overhanging brow and bad teeth and like to torture dogs. You might, you might not, I really don't care either way.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 06:05:53 AM · #130 |
You illustrate the commonly held belief perfectly: there's nobody more intolerant than a liberal.
You grasp my supposed "don't care about anybody else" attitude and express your shame, but neve get a grip on any of the actual points I raise.
What's up with that?
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 09:08:22 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
You illustrate the commonly held belief perfectly: there's nobody more intolerant than a liberal.
You grasp my supposed "don't care about anybody else" attitude and express your shame, but neve get a grip on any of the actual points I raise.
What's up with that? |
I simply expressed my opinion about your stated position and the way you chose to state it. I never questioned your right to have that opinion. If I were "intolerant" as you claim, I'd tell you that your opinion was wrong, that you had no right to think that way and would claim you were must be a thick skulled, beer bellied, low browed dog torturer in desperate need of dental work.
The health care system in the US is beyond screwed up. Sure, the care is first class, if you're lucky enough to be in the class of people that can afford insurance. Most of the deficiencies are due to the insurance companies prime motivation to maximize profits, which means minimizing expenses. The way they minimize expenses is to simply deny coverage to risky customers while charging more for lower risk customers and getting rid of those customers when they become expensive. Your solution, if you can call it that, simply removes restraint on what the insurance companies can do in their pursuit of the almighty dollar and does nothing to provide care to those that need it most. None of the insurance companies will ever willingly take on a customer that they feel is certain to cost more than they will receive in premiums. The system, as you've painted it, would effectively discard those people, leaving them on their own in an attempt to find care. Your approach opens the door to the henhouse and sends out engraved invitations to all of the foxes in the county. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 09:22:20 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...snip... the insurance companies prime motivation to maximize profits, which means minimizing expenses. The way they minimize expenses is to simply deny coverage to risky customers while charging more for lower risk customers and getting rid of those customers when they become expensive...snip... |
Ahahha! Memories... I spent the worst year of my life working as the IT Manager at an insurance company, and just because I had the word "manager" in my title I had to go to the management meetings. It was very true of this company. "WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING MONEY, NOT GIVING IT AWAY!", the CEO would often scream.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 09:49:10 AM · #133 |
And more wasteful, ineffective, and corrupt involvement of government in the whole process is the solution? When they can't keep their hands out of the till, when they can't help themselves but buy votes with public funds, when positions and patronage are the norm of the day, you guys want to give them MORE control?
I do not think the US system is any good at all. Insurance companies are a large part of the problem. Government is also a very large part of the problem. Getting both less involved in the proper decisions between health-care people and patients (in capitalist thought "market and consumer") can only increase efficiency. Contrary to whatever you perceive about conservative positions, most of us do care about the "little guy", the uninsured, the forgotten. Lots of us are charitable and compassionate. We're just more charitable with our own money, and less charitable with yours, if you get my drift.
And again, I'd think if some of the super rich would channel more than a few token millions of their assets into a health care fund for the uninsured and high-risk a lot of this "socialism" (yes, I know...but that's what it is, whatever you call it) could just go away. Are you listening Al Gore? George Soros? Bill Gates? Walton family? Richard Branson? Warren Buffett? Conservative rich, liberal rich, if YOU GAVE a big-ass chunk back, not just a pittance in order to look good, you could make a big difference. After all, you have 50 billion in your control. What if 45 of that was controlled into health care for those in need?
Oh, yeah, and some day liberals will start to consider alternative views, and consider that reasonable, intelligent people might disagree with them, and not automatically assume they're dull, brutal, and uncaring.
I know, but a man can dream, can't he?
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:09:14 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by karmat:
As a public school teacher, I had a long list of responsibilities. Actually educating your child, in the way that he would learn best and be most productive, was way down on the list. :/ Crowd control, giving instruction, and expecting regurgitated answers was more the norm, unfortunately. |
Both my parents were teachers, I've assisted and done training in the health field, and I have friends who teach both public and private high school.
I agree the things you mention are problems, but ones which are -- I believe -- largely due to the continual starving of the schools, mainly at the expense (sic) of a bloated military budget. A popular bumper sticker out this way reads (aproximately)
It Will Be A Great Day When The Schools Have All The Money They Need,
And The Navy Will Have To Hold A Bake Sale To Buy Another Aircraft Carrier.
=================
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953 |
More students mean more money. Unfortunately it is a downward cycle. The schools get less money, so they perform worse (most of the time, there are definitely exceptions -- different thread fodder). More students elect to school privately or homeschool. Less students mean less money and so forth.
My son is in Kindergarten. Because of the state of our local school system, and because we can't afford the private schools in the area, AND because I am a certified teacher, we homeschool.
In our county, there are enough homeschoolers to form a moderate sized school (around 600, last count that I heard). To me, if I were a county administrator, I would look at that number and say, "What do we need to do to make our schools good enough to entice them back to public schools, and thus receive funding for them?" The outlook, though, here and in many areas, is more of a "You are wrong to homeschool and you need to come back on our terms, regardless of what you want or believe." As a result, homeschoolers in our county are blocked from doing anything with the public schools (sports, band, etc.), even if they are willing to finance themselves, and even though the state law says it is legal.
So, I guess if I truly wanted to make the government schools better, I could take the first step and enroll my child as an example. Unfortunately, his education (and his sister's) is too important to me, and I will not sacrifice that. :( |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:14:05 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
And more wasteful, ineffective, and corrupt involvement of government in the whole process is the solution? |
The overhead/administrative costs for private insurance in the US runs about 30% of costs. For MediCare (government insurance) those costs run closer to 5%. So, which system is more inefficient and wasteful?
The average doctor's office has to spend something like 30% of their staff's time on billing the multitude of insurance companies, each with their own forms and billing codes, and (of course) appealing denials of coverage. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:18:43 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
And more wasteful, ineffective, and corrupt involvement of government in the whole process is the solution? When they can't keep their hands out of the till, when they can't help themselves but buy votes with public funds, when positions and patronage are the norm of the day, you guys want to give them MORE control?
I do not think the US system is any good at all. Insurance companies are a large part of the problem. Government is also a very large part of the problem. Getting both less involved in the proper decisions between health-care people and patients (in capitalist thought "market and consumer") can only increase efficiency. Contrary to whatever you perceive about conservative positions, most of us do care about the "little guy", the uninsured, the forgotten. Lots of us are charitable and compassionate. We're just more charitable with our own money, and less charitable with yours, if you get my drift.
And again, I'd think if some of the super rich would channel more than a few token millions of their assets into a health care fund for the uninsured and high-risk a lot of this "socialism" (yes, I know...but that's what it is, whatever you call it) could just go away. Are you listening Al Gore? George Soros? Bill Gates? Walton family? Richard Branson? Warren Buffett? Conservative rich, liberal rich, if YOU GAVE a big-ass chunk back, not just a pittance in order to look good, you could make a big difference. After all, you have 50 billion in your control. What if 45 of that was controlled into health care for those in need?
Oh, yeah, and some day liberals will start to consider alternative views, and consider that reasonable, intelligent people might disagree with them, and not automatically assume they're dull, brutal, and uncaring.
I know, but a man can dream, can't he? |
Despite their "wastefulness", the government will take care of the little guy without motives to make profit for the stockholder getting in the way. Any private venture will be motivated by profit and will seek to limit expenditures to help those who get in the way.
And if those rich decline to participate? Where does that leave little Billy who needs treatment for his cancer? It's cheaper for the insurance companies if he just dies quickly since that will help keep costs down and stockholder profits up.
Yes, I've seen how conservatives "care" for the little guy. They seem to care as long as it doesn't affect profits.
Corporations have repeatedly shown they typically are brutal and uncaring when they can get away with it. They're not dull, in fact, they're very smart about it, but still brutal and uncaring. Like WalMart suing Debbie Shank who was covered as an employee when in an accident left her permanently brain damaged and killed her son. While it's true that WalMart did finally relent, they did so only after their legal course of action was publicized. Had the case never come under public scrutiny, I highly doubt WalMArt would have let up until they had drained that family of what little they had left to pay for long term care.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 10:26:37. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:26:15 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by farfel53:
And more wasteful, ineffective, and corrupt involvement of government in the whole process is the solution? |
The overhead/administrative costs for private insurance in the US runs about 30% of costs. For MediCare (government insurance) those costs run closer to 5%. So, which system is more inefficient and wasteful?
The average doctor's office has to spend something like 30% of their staff's time on billing the multitude of insurance companies, each with their own forms and billing codes, and (of course) appealing denials of coverage. |
The CEO and the other top execs need their 8+ figure salaries/bonuses/perks. That's not to mention the profits due to the shareholders. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:39:42 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
...SNIP...Are you listening Al Gore? George Soros? Bill Gates? Walton family? Richard Branson? Warren Buffett? ...SNIP... |
Unless I'm mistaken, Richard Branson is a Brit BTW...
As an aside $8.5 Billion/month is going to be spent this year alone on the war in Iraq.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 10:46:17.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:51:55 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
As an aside $8.5 Billion/month is going to be spent this year alone on the war in Iraq. |
That's below the average of $12B/mo |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 11:22:53 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
...Contrary to whatever you perceive about conservative positions, most of us do care about the "little guy", the uninsured, the forgotten. Lots of us are charitable and compassionate. We're just more charitable with our own money... |
I'd say we're hard-pressed to find much evidence of charity and compassion but from those who can least afford it. In fact, we'd be hard-pressed to make an argument for the fair distribution of wealth altogether, especially in countries under conservative governments. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 12:57:02 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
fair distribution of wealth |
Will someone define this for me? What is fair? |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:25:02 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
fair distribution of wealth |
Will someone define this for me? What is fair? |
I'm not ready to say exactly how to slice up the pie, but I would say that 90% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of the people doesn't qualify as fair. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:27:59 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
fair distribution of wealth |
Will someone define this for me? What is fair? |
I'm not ready to say exactly how to slice up the pie, but I would say that 90% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of the people doesn't qualify as fair. |
Doesn't this just perpetuate a false expectation? Those that have wealth, for the most part, have worked for that wealth. I'm not saying that those with more shouldn't help those who are less fortunate. It's the gimme, gimme, gimme attitude that irks me.
"It's not what you make. It's what you keep." |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:49:57 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
fair distribution of wealth |
Will someone define this for me? What is fair? |
I'm not ready to say exactly how to slice up the pie, but I would say that 90% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of the people doesn't qualify as fair. |
Doesn't this just perpetuate a false expectation? Those that have wealth, for the most part, have worked for that wealth. I'm not saying that those with more shouldn't help those who are less fortunate. It's the gimme, gimme, gimme attitude that irks me.
"It's not what you make. It's what you keep." |
What false expectation? That members of a society contribute? That those who hold the bulk of a nation's wealth step up in proportion to their obscene wealth?
That those people who make hundreds of million in executive buyout packages while the average worker gets 2 weeks pay and a kick in the pants when the company folds help support those they screwed over with their "leadership"?
While you're at it justify Paris Hilton.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 13:50:28. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 02:38:42 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Those that have wealth, for the most part, have worked for that wealth. |
Much of that wealth is being made by gambling with investments -- using money to make money, but generating no real products, jobs or services.
Check out this radio interview with Professor Michael Greenberger for a clear and detailed explanation of the "shadow economy" which threatens the US way of life more than any rogue state ...
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 14:39:07. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:29:38 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
fair distribution of wealth |
Will someone define this for me? What is fair? |
I'm not ready to say exactly how to slice up the pie, but I would say that 90% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of the people doesn't qualify as fair. |
I agree. For anyone interested in how to approach a definition of what I mean by a fair distribution of wealth, here would be a good place to start. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:44:16 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What false expectation? That members of a society contribute? That those who hold the bulk of a nation's wealth step up in proportion to their obscene wealth?
|
Make of it what you will, but based on IRS data, in 2006 the Treasury Department reported that the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of all federal income taxes (and earn 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (and earn 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (and earn 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:50:44 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What false expectation? That members of a society contribute? That those who hold the bulk of a nation's wealth step up in proportion to their obscene wealth?
|
Make of it what you will, but based on IRS data, in 2006 the Treasury Department reported that the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of all federal income taxes (and earn 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (and earn 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (and earn 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%). |
That's taxable income.
I was referring to wealth. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:20:27 PM · #149 |
so, if my father had worked hard, made smart investments and accumulated a lot of wealth, whether in capital, land, or what-have-you, and paid taxes on all that he earned, then left it to me and my siblings when he died so that we, too, were "wealthy," that is unfair because there are some have-nots in the world?
Should I not be allowed to give where I see fit or contribute to the causes that I deem important?
Or should everything above x-amount go straight to the government so that it can be given to those in need?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Promise. I'm simply trying to get at what exactly you think should happen.
It may not be fair that there are people with obscene masses of wealth and others can't afford to buy their a piece of bread. But, how is that remedied?
Robin Hood? |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 05:14:23 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by karmat:
...It may not be fair that there are people with obscene masses of wealth and others can't afford to buy their a piece of bread. But, how is that remedied?
Robin Hood? |
A good place to start would be to a) acknowledge this fact, b) to imagine a society with less tolerance for obscenity and more bread, c) to employ intelligence and resources to research, study and devise a fair and equitable plan, d) to consult with supporters and opponents alike and e) to communicate in clear terms with the populace and strive to educate especially those who have nothing to loose. An American, especially, should be capable of taking some clues from history and the courage to overcome adversity from her founding fathers.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 17:31:28. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 06:37:42 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 06:37:42 AM EDT.
|
