Obama '08?

@dyslexia,

Quote:

well yeah, I bean saying the same for so many years I can't remember.

So why then do we spend so much of our national treasure on training doctors? After all, you the amateur in medicine think you know best. Are you sure that you have not fallen under the spell of of the capitalists who insist on Marketing drugs and procedures directly to patients because they know that the ignorant are more easy to con than the pro's are?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, I'm going to ask you to try and discuss central planning/other ways of doing things without Appealing to Extremes. Yes, the Soviet Union showed how many of these ideas can fail when taken to their logical limits. But surely you realize there is a large spectrum between the US and the USSR. We can make many changes without turning our system into a copy of their failed one.

Cycloptichorn

OK then consider (as I suggested) the far more moderate British experiment between 1945 and in 1965. It delivered more or less the same outcome. Consider the more-moderate-than -the Soviets (now departed and generally unlamented) former socialist governments of Central Europe. Look at the experiments with socialism of the early post colonial governments in Africa. They all failed miserably and were eventually rejected by the very people to whom a socialist paradise was promised.

I'll concede that the even more moderate Scandanavian systems have performed fairly well over time. However even there there is public debate about the tradeoffs. These countries have very homogenious populations, high degrees of cultural uniformity, restrictive immigration, and a fairly long tradition of staying as aloof as possible from the affairs of their neighbors. I don't think they provide a meaningful example for us.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

OK then consider (as I suggested) the far more moderate British experiment between 1945 and in 1965. It delivered more or less the same outcome. Consider the more-moderate-than -the Soviets (now departed and generally unlamented) former socialist governments of Central Europe. Look at the experiments with socialism of the early post colonial governments in Africa. They all failed miserably and were eventually rejected by the very people to whom a socialist paradise was promised.

the proposal on the table is to run health care out of non-profit NGO's, not socialist governments. Pre planning to reach an agreed upon goal and capital flow directed by experts is not always the less effective and efficient choice when compared to letting individuals do what ever they want via free markets.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, I'm going to ask you to try and discuss central planning/other ways of doing things without Appealing to Extremes. Yes, the Soviet Union showed how many of these ideas can fail when taken to their logical limits. But surely you realize there is a large spectrum between the US and the USSR. We can make many changes without turning our system into a copy of their failed one.

Cycloptichorn

OK then consider (as I suggested) the far more moderate British experiment between 1945 and in 1965. It delivered more or less the same outcome. Consider the more-moderate-than -the Soviets (now departed and generally unlamented) former socialist governments of Central Europe. Look at the experiments with socialism of the early post colonial governments in Africa. They all failed miserably and were eventually rejected by the very people to whom a socialist paradise was promised.

I'll concede that the even more moderate Scandanavian systems have performed fairly well over time. However even there there is public debate about the tradeoffs. These countries have very homogenious populations, high degrees of cultural uniformity, restrictive immigration, and a fairly long tradition of staying as aloof as possible from the affairs of their neighbors. I don't think they provide a meaningful example for us.

The beauty of the American system has always been our ability to pick and choose those aspects of other societies in order to form new, hybrid ways of doing things. We can study the lessons taught us by the failures of the past and try again, with a better perspective on things.

I reject the concept that we cannot try to improve and innovate, b/c previous attempts to do so have failed. We must continue to try and do so, and not be complacent with this system as it is, which currently fails many different varieties of Americans.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The beauty of the American system has always been our ability to pick and choose those aspects of other societies in order to form new, hybrid ways of doing things. We can study the lessons taught us by the failures of the past and try again, with a better perspective on things.

I reject the concept that we cannot try to improve and innovate, b/c previous attempts to do so have failed. We must continue to try and do so, and not be complacent with this system as it is, which currently fails many different varieties of Americans.

Cycloptichorn

I have no argument with that. However, my impression is that what we are talking about here (central planning of major economic sectors) is something that has failed wherever it was tried. Our traditional methods - for all their defects - have worked much better. This isn't much of a recommendation as a direction for new "innovation". All the available evidence says this "solution" is far worse than the "problem" it sets out to address.

There are indeed other, probably far better, ways to attack the specific issues we face without discarding the very thing that has made us so prosperous.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The beauty of the American system has always been our ability to pick and choose those aspects of other societies in order to form new, hybrid ways of doing things. We can study the lessons taught us by the failures of the past and try again, with a better perspective on things.

I reject the concept that we cannot try to improve and innovate, b/c previous attempts to do so have failed. We must continue to try and do so, and not be complacent with this system as it is, which currently fails many different varieties of Americans.

Cycloptichorn

I have no argument with that. However, my impression is that what we are talking about here (central planning of major economic sectors) is something that has failed wherever it was tried. Our traditional methods - for all their defects - have worked much better. This isn't much of a recommendation as a direction for new "innovation". All the available evidence says this "solution" is far worse than the "problem" it sets out to address.

There are indeed other, probably far better, ways to attack the specific issues we face without discarding the very thing that has made us so prosperous.

Well, I fail to understand why our insurance industry would not be just as effective as it is today, if it was ran on a not-for-profit basis rather than a for-profit basis. It doesn't have to be centrally managed by the government; we just need to get the corrupting influence of greed out of our health care management. It makes zero sense to have a system in place which is only deemed successful by not providing care to those who need it!

I've studied reports of some doctors in Washington state who have moved to the Retainer model of operation. No health insurance involved, they instead get a collection of doctors together and rely upon flat monthly fees from their clientele. Apparently they have proven quite popular for most medical causes (expensive surgery and complicated end-of-life health issues are a nagging problem in this system as well as our regular one) and reduce a lot of the waste, without resorting to some faceless bureaucrat making arbitrary decisions.

As I have pointed out before re: tort reform, the insurance industry really has a poor track record of investment over the last two decades. As many of them are public companies, they are forced to charge ever-increasing fees to make up for their poor investment choices. Why not do away with this altogether?

I do not believe that the future of health care in America should be inevitable wedded to a Dutch system of guaranteeing ships' voyages around around the horn of Africa... we can and must continue to innovate in order to provide better services to more people at a lower cost.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Capitalism works when there is more balance to the earnings of the workers, and the CEOs don't earn over 300 x's plus the wages of its workers. Paying out millions as bonus or golden parachutes to CEOs don't make any sense when the real production is produced by the workers on the "floor," and not all CEOs do well for the companies they work for. The title seems as if it's some kind of privilege over performance. Bonus for failure is ridiculous, and can't be justified under any scenario.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Certainly President Bush can be criticized for much. But we weren't talking about President Bush were we? I don't recall making any kind of comparison between President Bush and President Obama

Well....I don't recall Pres Bush taking hostile questions from American journalists, never mind another country's. Why, they might have asked him something he couldn't answer. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@McTag,

But what difference does it make what questions President took, hostile or not, now? What does that have to do with President Obama in any way?

For that matter, have you ever....I mean EVER....said anything complimentary about President Bush? The folks here who seem to think I'm the most terrible, most dishonest, most unreasonable, most uneducated, most hateful, most partisan (or pick the 'most' of your choice) to ever come to A2K have certainly said very little complimentary about President Bush or anybody in his administration unless it was somebody in the administration complaining about the administration. They certainly think it is fair game to criticize and accuse me of whatever for anything I say that doesn't fit what they think. Maybe it is fair game. Maybe I'm guilty of everything they accuse me of. But if I am, what does that have to do with President Obama?

Whatever you have ever said about President Bush, whatever I have ever said about President Bush--and I have been as uncomplimentary as complimentary there--what does that have to do with valid criticism of President Obama?

Or are the most open minded, fair, intellectually honest, even handed, non partisan, and tolerant members of A2K going to really insist that he is above reproach and off limits for criticism because he isn't George W. Bush?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I disagree with you list, and offer mine:

You are the "regular" victim who thinks you're the smartest "thing" on a2k, who hates to be proven you are wrong, but often contradict yourself from one post to the next. Probably "partisan" fits best from your own list.

Bush deserves non-complimentary comments when he has taken our country into a unnecessary war that has cost our country over four thousand lives (changed his justification from WMDs to bring democracy to the Middle East), and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives with no exit strategy; was asleep at the switch to let our banks and finance companies gamble on derivatives built on false values; and lost many of our former allies - especially in the Middle East.

Maybe, you can look at the big picture and tell us what Bush did right during his eight years in office?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You are sweet, lovable, kind, fair minded, nonjudgmental, and a wonderful human being, CI. Thank you for being here.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The only thing Bush did right in eight years was to get the hell out of there before his dignity sank into the bottom of an outhouse toilet.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I don't have to be "sweet." Just telling it like I sees em.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I know and I can't tell you how wonderful you are. Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to pay attention to me. It is truly the mark of a great and generous man.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Thank you for noticing...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

How do you know ci. that it was an "unnecessary war" when you have no clue what the alternative might have been. It ousted other possibilities and your blithe assumption that they would all be satisfactory is a form of ignorance reinforced by prejudice.

And whatever the bankers and finance companies did they caused a lot of houses to be built which wouldn't have been and somebody will live in them. They also provided a good boom which we all enjoyed and only those whose heads it went to lost out.

Your perpetual milking of the compassion udder is a bit sickening.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Why are you not out campaigning for the collective carbon footprint of the population of Chad to match your own on a quiet day? Are you a racist or what?

0 Replies

@spendius,

There have been many articles that supports what I've said about "Iraq being an unnecessary war" because the only true justification for the war would have been for our country's security. What the Iraq war accomplished was to spread terrorism around the world. Even the UK was bombed a few times since our invasion of Iraq.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know