Brown Wins

[The Paineful Truth]

This is enormous. Kennedy's seat being won by a Republican. Incredible! Not just that, but it would never have happened but for Obamacare, Cap & Trade, and above all, Democrat high-handedness. Is (was?) there a bluer state than Massachusetts? There is no doubt that this was a referendum on national issues. Brown campaigned solely on those issues.

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard 'round the world."

Massachusetts heard from on the brink again.

[Peter Kropotkin]

UHHH no, my guess is party infighting by dems created this situation.
There is an very, very old saying which goes like this.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL. That's it.

One senator does not make it a problem. If I were a guessing person today, I would say that the dems will
lose 20-30 house seats and breaks even on senate this year. No problem. health care will pass this year.
My thought is for the dems to stop waiting for the GOPers to cross the aisle. Simple as that.
They are simply stalling, stalling and stalling some more. Wait no more for them.

The teabaggers will seriously hurt the GOP this year is my other thought. They will be encouraged and it won't turn out well.

Kropotkin

[felix dakat]

Kiss health care for all Americans goodbye.

[Peter Kropotkin]

I must say, on one level I hope this particular bill doesn't pass because it is not a very good bill.
too much pork for big pharm and hmo's. A cleaner bill would certainly help out the situation.
But even a small measure would help to show people the lies of the GOP.
health care is so screwed up in this country some sort of bill will eventually pass and
it will be without the crap that this bill has.

Kropotkin

[Mastriani]

A cleaner bill would certainly help out the situation.

You've officially lost touch with sensibility and reasoning Mr. K.

Until Torts Laws are changed, and scumbag lawyers are either regulated, or preferably executed; nothing will help.

The other major problem is that State's have to much regulatory control over insurance; which effectively stymies adequate competition.

Nothing that comes out of government will ever help. Giving unearned healthcare to scumbag illegal aliens isn't going to help the situation either. I'd have thought you being from California, you would've learned from the epidemic those pukes have caused there. There is no such thing as a bill from our government that isn't assloaded with earmarks and unlawful pork.

As a side note, the inglorious deceiver, Chairman Maobama, has done a fabulous job with "transparency" on the healthcare legislative process, has he not?

OH, WAIT ...

No, he didn't, because he is exactly the same manner of deceitful puke that the Village Idiot was ... 6 on 1, half dozen on the other.

Seriously, you still don't get it? Really?

[Peter Kropotkin]

In a cheerful mood, are we mas?

i was thinking about it and it dawned on me. What is the right really saying?
You can, by several standards, make the case that the U.S has perhaps the worse
health care system of any industrial country and that is clearly because it has the private system we have.
Now What is the right saying is that we cannot run an health care system as well as France or Sweden or Germany
or Japan. So what it is really saying that our government is so incompetent and inept that it cannot do what other
government can do such as the french, Swiss, Sweden, Denmark. So what the right is saying is we as a country is
we are inept and incompetent beyond other counties. It is a negative commentary on us as a country. We cannot do what other
countries routinely do. I think it is an amazing commentary on america by the right.

Recall that the US is ranked 37 by the WHO and such countries such as France, Sweden, japan, Denmark, Germany
are ranked higher than the US. All countries with so called 'socialised" medicine. Not only are they better, but they cost
so much less than the US which leads one to not only to our government is incapable of running an health care system,
but we are incapable of running any sort of system cheaper than other governments. I don't believe I have ever heard
a more negative commentary on the American way of life outside of AL-qaeda or perhaps the Taliban.

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

To continue my thought about health care, let us begin by looking at first how much health care actually cost.
a list to put our health care in perspective.

Total Health Expenditures as % of GDP, 2002-2005 - Country Rankings
http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_h ... _2005.html
SOURCE: The World Health Organization





The following table is compiled from the data in the World Health Organization Statistical Information System.

For explanations, please refer to notes below the table, and to the latest version of the World Health Statistics publication available at http://www.who.int/whosis/.

Total Expenditure on Health as % of GDP 2000-2005

Rank Location 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
------- --------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
1 Marshall Islands 22 19.1 18.4 16.3 13.2 15.4
2 United States of America 13.2 13.9 14.7 15.1 15.2 15.2
3 Niue 8 38.1 11.1 12.5 15.5 14.5
4 Timor-Leste 8.8 8.6 8.5 9.2 10.3 13.7
5 Micronesia (Fed. States of) 9 9.8 9.1 10.7 11.7 13.5
6 Kiribati 11.6 12.3 12.6 13.7 13.7 12.7
7 Maldives 6.8 6.8 6.6 7.2 7.8 12.4
8 Malawi 6.1 7.8 10 12.8 12.8 12.2
9 Switzerland 10.3 10.7 11 11.4 11.4 11.4
10 France 9.6 9.7 10 10.9 11 11.2
11 Germany 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.8 10.6 10.7
12 Jordan 9.4 9.6 9.3 9.3 10.1 10.5
13 Nauru 11 10.8 10.6 10.3 10.4 10.3
14 Argentina 8.9 9.5 8.9 8.3 9.6 10.2
15 Austria 10 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.2
16 Portugal 8.8 8.8 9 9.7 10 10.2
17 Greece 9.3 9.8 9.7 10 9.6 10.1
18 Canada 8.8 9.3 9.6 9.8 9.8 9.8
19 Sao Tome and Principe 6.3 9.1 8.6 11.9 12.1 9.8
20 Belgium 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.6
21 Palau 9.7 9.1 10.1 11.5 9.7 9.6
22 Denmark 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.3 9.4 9.4
23 Iceland 9.3 9.2 9.9 10.2 9.9 9.4
24 Netherlands 8 8.3 8.9 8.9 9 9.2
25 Sweden 8.2 8.6 9 9.1 9.2 9.2
26 Norway 8.4 8.8 9.8 10 9.7 9.1
27 Italy 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.7 8.9
28 New Zealand 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.9
29 Australia 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.8 8.8
30 Bosnia and Herzegovina 7 6.9 7.7 8.1 8.6 8.8
31 Tuvalu 13.4 10.5 9.4 11.1 9.2 8.8
32 Lebanon 11 10.7 9.4 8.9 8.8 8.7
33 South Africa 8.1 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.7
34 Georgia 7.4 7.8 8.7 8.5 8.5 8.6
35 Slovenia 8.4 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.5 8.5
36 Malta 6.8 7.2 7.8 8.1 8.2 8.4
37 Botswana 4.8 4.2 5.7 6.4 7.7 8.3
38 Ireland 6.3 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 8.2
39 Japan 7.6 7.9 8 8.1 8 8.2
40 Spain 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.8 8.1 8.2

So we spend as a % of our cost which is far greater than other countries such as Sweden, Spain,
Norway, Italy, and France. are we getting what we are paying for?

That will be our topic next time.

Kropotkin

[Mastriani]

Agree or disagree Mr. K, you know I still love to debate you.

Don't make me lay down my special emoticon for these moments ... yeah, that's right, you know the one.

LOL.

[Xunzian]

There are plenty of states that have enacted Tort reform and it hasn't significantly brought down cost. It is certainly an issue of billions of dollars but the problem we are facing is on the order of trillions of dollars.

[felix dakat]

If it were me, I would have given the Republicans retort reform as a negotiating chip to get them on board with a health care bill. But the lawyer lobby co-owns the Democratic Party so that wasn't gonna happen.

[Dairdo]

There are plenty of states that have enacted Tort reform and it hasn't significantly brought down cost. It is certainly an issue of billions of dollars but the problem we are facing is on the order of trillions of dollars.

I disagree. A number of my clients are directly invovled in healthcare in a number of States that have recently enacted Tort reform to cap the insane punitive damage awards that jury's were awarding. Even the early results are a substantial decline in the amount of litigation actions, claim activity and a return to common sense within the medical industry. Doctors aren't refusing to perform certain procedures for fear of $20M lawsuit should something happen in - wait for it - a "risky" procedure.

More importantly, actuaries across the board are anticipating a significant decline in commercial carrier (direct and reinsurance) premiums in those states over the next 10-20 years as the frequency and severity trend downwards now that the parasitic casualty lawyers have left.

[Xunzian]

Apples to oranges.. You'll note that I did say it would save money but the money saved isn't enough to actually provide a solution. The US spends 2.3 Trillion dollars annually on healthcare. ~1.5% of that does represent a lot of money. But in the grand scheme of things, it is small potatoes. The effect on states with and without shows similar results. Look at Texas, where the recent Tort reform where malpractice costs dropped from around 100 million to 2.8 million. That is an amazing drop! But let's suppose that tort reform were enacted on a national scale and every state with it got the same amazing results. So (100-2.8 )*50=4,860. That is 5 Billion dollars saved! A huge sum of money. But that is still only 2.1% of US Medical spending. Given that America is hemorrhaging money on healthcare, I don't think that 2.1% is enough of a difference.

I agree with Felix that it would have been nice to compromise on tort reform (money saved is money saved, after all) and if that can be coupled with changes to the system that would actually make the system work, well, that would have been fantastic.

[Dairdo]

Point taken.

[bike_seat]

America is saved

[Peter Kropotkin]

Now back to the grind. For all that money what do we get?
Well in terms of life expectancy at birth, according to the CIA, yep, that CIA,
the US is ranked 50th in the world behind such powerhouses as Australia, Canada, Sweden,
Italy, Germany, Finland, Denmark, the UK and our friends in France. If we recall that we spend
15% of our GDP on health care and France spends 11.2 but as Xunzian points out we spends trillions and
France probably spends billions.

Now let us look at infant mortality.

The US ranks 33 behind such countries as Italy, Canada , the UK, Denmark, Spain, Germany, and of course
France.

So we two rather big factors in which we are worse than countries that spend trillions less than us.
Not very good bang for the really big bucks we spend.

Kropotkin

[bike_seat]

peter, no one is listening to your insane babble

[Xunzian]

PK,

It works better if you calculate it on a per capita spending basis. The American economy is huge and so its corresponding numbers are also huge.

Everybody,

For fun, create an aggregate of the countries you feel are in America's class. By whatever scale you want. List your countries and why you include them. Who you think is on par with America is a subjective evaluation, after all! Take American spending on healthcare (2.3 trillion/year) and divide it by the American per capita spending on healthcare as of the most recent estimate ($6,714). Remember that number. Now split the difference between the current American number and the number you generated as your aggregate. Healthcare reform takes time and is difficult after all. Then see how much money we'd save.

I'll take the Canadian system as an example, for simplification. Similar geography, post-British colonies, yada-yada. In Canada, it is US 3,678 per capita. An average value is therefore: 5,196. 2.3 trillion divided by $6,715 is 1.8 trillion. 2.3 trillion - 1.8 trillion is 500 billion dollars.

So, if the American system where between where it is now and where the Canadian system (not the best system in the first world, btw) is, we'd be saving 460 billion dollars a year. That is 20% of current US spending on healthcare.

The median between a broken system and an OK system results in a 20% savings. But clearly, what we need to focus on is something that represents a savings of somewhere between 1.5 and 2.1%! Obviously!

The healthcare debate is a joke. Especially when those against reforming the American system talk about fiscal responsibility. There are other philosophical justifications for the American system. We can discuss them if you'd like -- if you can name them. But fiscal responsibility ain't on that list.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Bike seat: That might be the nicest thing you have ever said to me.

I am in research mode right now, so I shall post shortly.

Kropotkin

[The Paineful Truth]

UHHH no, my guess is party infighting by dems created this situation.
There is an very, very old saying which goes like this.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL. That's it.

Given the power that has been accumulated in Washington from the states, locals and individuals, and the immediacy of our communications, the US IS local. Brown ran strictly on national issues, and it worked. You/the Dems can believe that and maybe only get spanked in November, or continue to arrogantly go about Democrat business as usual and get clobbered/demolished.

Americans (including many independents, "moderates" and even some big-government Democrats) are pissed. The party's over. Obama was only able to exert negative influence in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts.

[Peter Kropotkin]

You are making a huge mistake thinking that this is some sort of referendum on Obama.
Sometime voters just like a candidate better then another candidate. And all politics is local.

Kropotkin

[Mr_Anderson]

Obama is dead long live the next Republican retard.

Not saying they all have been but Reagan initiated the global economy to collapse, Bush got us involved in a war, and his retard son then persued it to his ineveitable demise. At least Clinton kept the budget positive, even if he wasn't the greatest President of all time. Repbulicanism is fine by me seriously I like yin and yang it's healthy, but they are just totally fucked by Bush Jr atm. Need to reinvent themselves as a party the world gives a fuck about, because you can be damn sure only the stupid states do atm.

Frankly your two party state atm is going through a crisis of faith because you've let nothing but mediocre people in power for the last 30 years, stop voting in people who can play the banjo, start voting in people that matter. Obama who knows, too early to tell, he's trying his best, but you've got a shit hole now. I'd feel symapthy for you if I didn't have empathy we're just the same in my country, something needs to happen. I think you are finally realising in a democracy you only get the government you deserve, along with us. It's take out the trash time.

[The Paineful Truth]

I think you are finally realising in a democracy you only get the government you deserve, along with us. It's take out the trash time.

I agree with that. The only real positive things I can say about Bush Jr. is I think he did the right thing on terrorism (even Obama is following suit), and his minor tax cuts were small but a help. Other than that, he was an empty suit, scared of his own shadow and afraid to do the right thing.

But you're wrong about Reagan. If it hadn't been for him, the economy would have tanked long before and we'd be kissing Soviet ass. The economy tanked because of the Community Reinvestment Act. It was initiated by Carter (our worst President in history--until our current Carter II showed up), doubled-down by Clinton and his Attorney General, Janet Reno, who used threats of legal action to pressure banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers. Obama is an apostle of the radical, near anarchist, Saul Alinsky and the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis he inspired. Obama even taught classes based on his philosophy and his book, Rules for Radicals.

[Mr_Anderson]

I think you are finally realising in a democracy you only get the government you deserve, along with us. It's take out the trash time.

I agree with that. The only real positive things I can say about Bush Jr. is I think he did the right thing on terrorism (even Obama is following suit), and his minor tax cuts were small but a help. Other than that, he was an empty suit, scared of his own shadow and afraid to do the right thing.

But you're wrong about Reagan. If it hadn't been for him, the economy would have tanked long before and we'd be kissing Soviet ass. The economy tanked because of the Community Reinvestment Act. It was initiated by Carter (our worst President in history--until our current Carter II showed up), doubled-down by Clinton and his Attorney General, Janet Reno, who used threats of legal action to pressure banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers. Obama is an apostle of the radical, near anarchist, Saul Alinsky and the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis he inspired. Obama even taught classes based on his philosophy and his book, Rules for Radicals.

Rubbish Gorbochev did all the work, Reagans only claim is that he was willing to go along with it because the cold war was obsolete and designed only to make idiots take their eyes of the worlds real problems.

Reagans "Laissez faire" economics freeing up restrictions on lending and Margaret Thatchers ass licking and pandering to such things was the cause, then when labour got in they encouraged people to buy to prop up the economy that was the result of the inevitable crash of the economies, and that's when the shit really hit the fan. Any retard can see that.

If you look back it's possible to watch the whole thing with an impending sense of doom. Which is why libertarians are more unrealistic and plain flat out wrong even than communists. Free market shut up you retards, nothing in life is free not even speech and certainly not you, hence society you spanner.

Socialists = pie in the sky merchants
Communists = dreamers
Liberals = idealistic dreamers with a penchant for social reform and limited capitalism
Centerists = people who can't decide which is best or ditherers
Conservatives = idealistic dreamers with a penchant for capital
Libertarians = delusional
Fascists = idiots who were probably bullied at school and or crap at art.
Nationalists = idiots who think patriotism is a pillar of wisdom instead of the cause of all wars since Imhotep first said I know let's visit Israel!

That's why there's a two party system or three or more with the exception of cumminism which if you ask me is nothing more than a transition from monarchy to democracy, it's what's known as keeping the delusional/dreamers in power only so long as they prove useful, if not they are first against the wall.

EDIT: Communism*

[The Paineful Truth]

I see. You got any solutions or are we just fucked up with no decent path available?

cumminism which if you ask me is nothing more than a transition from monarchy to democracy,

Make that "a transition from monarchy to oligarchy" and you've pretty much got that one right. I don't know how "democracy" ever became an ideal in this country, it didn't start out that way. Our founders were more afraid of it than a monarchy. Democracy is nothing but two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, i.e. mob rule.

[Mr_Anderson]

I see. You got any solutions or are we just fucked up with no decent path available?

cumminism which if you ask me is nothing more than a transition from monarchy to democracy,

Make that "a transition from monarchy to oligarchy" and you've pretty much got that one right. I don't know how "democracy" ever became an ideal in this country, it didn't start out that way. Our founders were more afraid of it than a monarchy. Democracy is nothing but two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, i.e. mob rule.

There is no solution to democracy it merely limits the damage any one idiot can do in his life time, and that is as good as it gets. the two+ party systems ensures a balance between one set of ideals and another, thus ensuring provided your goal posts are wide enough that there is some progress between conservative and liberal and socialist. Or just conservative to less coservative if you have some wierd fucked up business run system for sale to the highest bidder crap hole like the US does.

So you advocate letting true mob rule rule instead of democracy which is organised mob rule. This is why libertarians are so idiotic, they are just not living in any real world like social or non social anarchists their libertarian opposites, they are just pie in the sky merchants like the socialists. Human beings aren't altruisitic or purely selfish, thus any system that caters to the widest core values of its population is going to work better than one that caters either exclusively to altruism or self interest. That is just self evident given history. Which is why I think the libertarians are a joke, or a joke party wherever they exist. They are kind of like socieites disease, making the social whole less healthy or at least trying to. Elitism is moronic and anyone who forfeits their reason to it is a slave be it economic "freedom" if that even makes sense or social "freedom". No man is born free, is free or has true freedom, unless he lives on his own millions of miles from anyone and has no moral system.

Personally I find that all libertarians I have met in real life, are wealthy middle class, politicised elitists, and usually only children. They are also all without exception sadly cunts, who make me cringe with embarrassement at their moral turpitude.

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals."[1]

The concept of moral turpitude escapes precise definition but has been described as an "act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." [2] Until recent times, a man engaged in homosexual behavior was considered engaging 'criminal behavior involving moral turpitude'. [3] The classification of a crime or other conduct as constituting moral turpitude has significance in several areas of law. First, prior conviction of a crime of moral turpitude (or in some jurisdictions, moral turpitude conduct, even without a conviction) is considered to have a bearing on the honesty of a witness and may be used for purposes of witness impeachment. [4] Second, moral turpitude offenses may be grounds to deny or revoke a professional license such as a teaching credential, [5] license to practice law, [6] or other licensed profession. Third, it is of great importance for immigration purposes, as only those offenses which are defined as involving moral turpitude are considered bars to immigration into the U.S. [7]

At least I live in a country that vaguely understands that Capitalism is not God, and banks are not its temples nor bankers it's preachers, nor are economists its missionaries.