Vote Republican: Support Senator Ron Paul!

[Cyrus]

I would never vote for a Texan or a fundamentalist christian, I will only vote for an American.

Is that statement supposed to mean anything?

 

[BobG]

I looked for the words pray and religion in that document. Pray does not occur at all. Religion appears once, but does not say that the Boy Scouts are allowed to hold religious ceremonies in schools. I don't think your phrase 'regardless of the ceremony they're performing' was supported in that article, but I didn't read it thoroughly. My guess is that the document changes nothing in this regard, you still can't spend tax money on religious ceremonies.


This is a straw man argument. The only activities barred are religious ones.

You're right. Saying the Boy Scouts of America perform religious ceremonies is a big stretch, but there is a reason there was a special legislative act to ensure they had equal access to public facilities.

Being open only to members that share the same moral and religious beliefs caused a lot of litigation. About 400 military bases and a 1,000 other government entities (mainly schools) were forced to quit sponsoring Boy Scout troops.

The only reason that's relevant is that those are the types of situations that make some of Paul's comments attractive to quite a large number of people. Any damage the Boy Scouts may cause to society (either actively or just by helping prolong discriminatory traditions) is certainly unclear to the average person and contributes to the "ambiguity in the word "public" (in public view vs. publicly funded)".

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.

Edit: Rereading, maybe you thought I was saying your first post was wrong. I was asking if your Hugo Black quote was relevant to CINA's scenario. It may have been relevant specifically to a Christmas play, but I kind of had the impression he was talking in more general terms about how any association with religion at all is driven out of public facilities.

 

[Moridin]

As was mentioned many times after Sicko was released, US health care is difficult to fund because there are no price caps on anything. Places like Canada and UK don't have a problem funding health care for those same numbers of old people because each person costs less than half as much. If drugs will cost $100 in the US, it will be more like $10-20 in Canada, UK, France, Australia, etc.

Please. Health care is not about drugs. Or the cost of drugs. The reason the US health care / public health system is in such a disarray is because of Republican cut backs and their attempts to limit federal funding of basic public health. We are not talking expensive drugs or even expensive procedures, but preventive public health, health education.

The reason health care is 'difficult to fund' is because the Republicans does not understand what health care is about. The majority of the sensible health care propositions or motions has been butchered in Congress by republicans throughout the late 20th century.

I can't speak for Ron, but he's probably talking about preventative measures with alternative medicine. Yoga (stretching) is generally a good idea; I don't think any good doctor will tell you not to stretch. Tai chi is exercise for fat and old people, so that's a good idea. Chiropractors can fix minor back problems for a lot less than what an osteopath will charge. Magnet therapy cures hypochondria (lol). Herbs are very strong placebos.

Do you even know what the term 'alternative medicine' means?

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/alternativemedicine.html

Homeopathy, for instance, is 'alternative medicine'. It is basically about drinking diluted substances (almost water) and is nothing more than pseudoscience. Yoga is not alternative medicine. Neither is any form of exercise. The Placebo effect is just a way of ripping people off most of the time. What is needed is actual public health, focusing on prevention and education.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

As was mentioned many times after Sicko was released, US health care is difficult to fund because there are no price caps on anything. Places like Canada and UK don't have a problem funding health care for those same numbers of old people because each person costs less than half as much. If drugs will cost $100 in the US, it will be more like $10-20 in Canada, UK, France, Australia, etc.

The problem with price caps is that they don't alter costs. It has been said that it costs pharma companies $800 million to develop a new drug. And how many years of education and money does it take to be part of developing a new drug. How many drugs come out of Canada, UK and France? They all use American drugs because there is better incentive and rewards here. How many of those companies import med staff? It's been said that the UK imports half, because UK med students have to deal with more bueracracy and lower salary. Changing price does not change cost, that is simple economics.

Please. Health care is not about drugs. Or the cost of drugs. The reason the US health care / public health system is in such a disarray is because of Republican cut backs and their attempts to limit federal funding of basic public health. We are not talking expensive drugs or even expensive procedures, but preventive public health, health education.

Democrats have massive health education campaigns planned? I haven't heard any. What has a liberal congress done so far? I don't think health education would do much for genetic problems. Also personally speaking I never got much out of sex ed or health class in school. It should come from parental teaching and examples in the household, not the government.

 

[Moridin]

Democrats have massive health education campaigns planned? I haven't heard any. What has a liberal congress done so far? I don't think health education would do much for genetic problems. Also personally speaking I never got much out of sex ed or health class in school. It should come from parental teaching and examples in the household, not the government.

No, that would be at state or county level. Its funding, however, comes from federal dollars. Congress is all about funding public health. I'm not looking short-term here. These (severe) budget cuts for funding public health has been going on under the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, where democrats have been at the forefront in advocating it. Resurrecting functional health care is a massive task. A case in point was when Rodham Clinton got a taste of when her health care reform hit Congress in -93. The point is that every good suggestion is slaughtered by Congress to nothing more than sharply reduced block grants. Time and time again. The politics concerning public health is a long, long struggle.

Preventative education and care would even help 'genetic problems', such as heart disease by alternating ones life style.

The problem with US health care is not the government, it is the lack of government. If you leave it up to the states or counties and at the same time cutting back on funding public health (which has been done repeatedly on Medicaid, Medicare throughout the last ~20 years, heavy layoffs etc.) it is a disaster waiting to happen (and it has). People who are uncovered is steadily increasing. More and more people are falling under the poverty line.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

People who are uncovered is steadily increasing. More and more people are falling under the poverty line.

Mostly because of poor life choices. Why should the government bail them out? Moreover, why should I bail them out. I am a small business owner and have to pay for my own health insurance. It's only $70/m. Who can't pay that? In my city you can goto the ghetto and see cars lined up, block to block. You can see tvs with cable in every house and I bet cellphones in every pocket. The poor is not really poor in the US. It's just people with terrible budgeting and poor life choices.

 

[Moridin]

Mostly because of poor life choices. Why should the government bail them out? Moreover, why should I bail them out.

Yes, I'm sure that all poor and sick people are just trying to rip you off, personally. All poor people living in misery are doing so by their own free will. How delusional can you get? Your own experience (and probably cognitive bias) is nothing compared with statistics. Try backing up your argument with statistics please.

I'm sure that you are in desperate need for the few miserly dollars that goes to public health from your taxes. A better question is why you should pay for an unjustified war that is going nowhere? For giving away arms to the Middle East? Come to think about it, why should you pay for state primary education? After all, you do not use it right now? Why should you pay for any number of things that benefit the citizens of the US for what you do not use at the moment? Threats to public health does not understand class borders. It does not care if you are rich or poor. Public health is about the collective, not the individual.

 

[CINA]

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/alternativemedicine.html

Homeopathy, for instance, is 'alternative medicine'. It is basically about drinking diluted substances (almost water) and is nothing more than pseudoscience. Yoga is not alternative medicine. Neither is any form of exercise. The Placebo effect is just a way of ripping people off most of the time. What is needed is actual public health, focusing on prevention and education.

According to Harvard it is, along with everything else that was mentioned.

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968.html#tuvwxyz

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, I'm sure that all poor and sick people are just trying to rip you off, personally. All poor people living in misery are doing so by their own free will. How delusional can you get? Your own experience (and probably cognitive bias) is nothing compared with statistics. Try backing up your argument with statistics please.

He didn't say "all", he said "most". And the fact of the matter is that a very high fraction of poor people are poor by their own bad choices. The most telling sign is the extremely high corellation between education and income. Most poor people are poor simply because they chose not to finish high school.

 

[ShawnD]

He didn't say "all", he said "most". And the fact of the matter is that a very high fraction of poor people are poor by their own bad choices. The most telling sign is the extremely high corellation between education and income. Most poor people are poor simply because they chose not to finish high school.

Job requirements are on a bell curve, just like everything else at life. If suddenly 100% of the population had finished high school and had a bachelor degree, jobs would start requiring masters and PhDs. Just look at current job requirements and you can see how this is true; entry level jobs for analytical chemistry often require 5-10 years of experience or they won't even look at you. Engineering is a bit better, requiring maybe 2+ years of experience. Anything IT related practically needs a PhD because the market is so heavily saturated. Employers never care about absolute, they always want relative. They want the top 10% of people no matter what.

Greg has a point when he says poor people have cell phones and RIMZ, but that doesn't change the fact that not everybody can have a good paying job. I can't think of any economic model that would "fix" that problem, except for communism, but that doesn't really bring up the bottom as much as it cuts down the top.

 

[cronxeh]

I can't speak for Ron, but he's probably talking about preventative measures with alternative medicine. Yoga (stretching) is generally a good idea; I don't think any good doctor will tell you not to stretch. Tai chi is exercise for fat and old people, so that's a good idea. Chiropractors can fix minor back problems for a lot less than what an osteopath will charge. Magnet therapy cures hypochondria (lol). Herbs are very strong placebos.

Alternative medicine is not a bad idea when you're talking about an expensive system that accounts for the majority of personal bankruptcies. If your problem can be prevented with a bit of stretching and slow movements, that's probably a lot cheaper than having heart bypass or prescription pain killers.

I thought he was talking about having health insurance companies pay for the chiropractor visits or any alternative medicine visits, as I think those are not covered under health insurance policies

 

[Moridin]

He didn't say "all", he said "most". And the fact of the matter is that a very high fraction of poor people are poor by their own bad choices. The most telling sign is the extremely high corellation between education and income. Most poor people are poor simply because they chose not to finish high school.

Does not matter because there was no evidence that back it up. Yes, I'm sure that "most" people with high school education becomes rich automatically. Your position is a naive one. You might be able to show that people who have a low education generally have a low income, but you will have to work harder to show the other way around. Ever heard of unemployed academics?

 

[Astronuc]

Vote Republican!

Well, Republicans hope you will.

Warner's Move Adds to Growing GOP Senate Woes
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14102297

Craig Set to Join Flurry of GOP Exits
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14112408

Weekend Edition Saturday, September 1, 2007 · Republican political departures are keeping Washington in the spotlight during what is often a quiet time for politics. Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is expected to resign Saturday in the wake of a sex scandal and Virginia Sen. John Warner announced Friday he will not run for a sixth term.

. . .

But the image of the party that heralds decency, family values and faith-based initiatives has become sorely tarnished lately. Mostly recently, Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, apologized in July for his use of a D.C. "escort service."

. . .

In addition to the executive branch, lots of seats in Congress up for grabs in 2008 it seems.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Job requirements are on a bell curve, just like everything else at life. If suddenly 100% of the population had finished high school and had a bachelor degree, jobs would start requiring masters and PhDs. Just look at current job requirements and you can see how this is true; entry level jobs for analytical chemistry often require 5-10 years of experience or they won't even look at you. Engineering is a bit better, requiring maybe 2+ years of experience. Anything IT related practically needs a PhD because the market is so heavily saturated. Employers never care about absolute, they always want relative. They want the top 10% of people no matter what.

I like your bell curve statement, interesting. However, job promotions stating requirements are usually completely off base. This is extremely apparent in the tech industry, where if you goto monster.com you'll see tech job ad with about 20 tech acronyms requirements. When I was in high school, I got summer intern jobs at very nice tech companies, but if you looked at the ads you'd think I needed to be Bill Gates. Most job ads are made by HR who just plug in trendy words.

Greg has a point when he says poor people have cell phones and RIMZ, but that doesn't change the fact that not everybody can have a good paying job. I can't think of any economic model that would "fix" that problem, except for communism, but that doesn't really bring up the bottom as much as it cuts down the top.

A job has very little to do with whether you are poor or rich. It's about lifestyle, budgeting and investment choices. If I started work at Burger Kind starting tomorrow I could get by very "comfortably". Now, do I really blame a kid how he turned out because his dad was a deadbeat in jail, his mom always pregnant and his friends all do drugs? Of course not, it's a sad cycle. I certainly don't have the answer, but the realities are easy to figure out.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Does not matter because there was no evidence that back it up.

I live downtown in a major US city with one of the largest poor populations. I have several social worker friends and regularly walk/drive through neighborhoods where shooting occur daily. I also have first hand experience being in the Big Brother program.

 

[Moridin]

I live downtown in a major US city with one of the largest poor populations. I have several social worker friends and regularly walk/drive through neighborhoods where shooting occur daily. I also have first hand experience being in the Big Brother program.

'Saying that something is true because someone told me it is' is not a strong argument, especially when you have been faced with credible statistics.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

'Saying that something is true because someone told me it is' is not a strong argument, especially when you have been faced with credible statistics.

Do you have a source for these stats that show most people living in poverty are not personally responsible for their situation and rendered inherently helpless in getting out of it?

 

[kasse]

Vote democratic!

 

[phoenixy]

Ron Paul @ Republican Fox Debate 9-5-07



In today's political climate, there is democrats, republicans, neo-cons, and then there is Ron Paul. This guy is in his own league. A completely different class of animal. An one man army.

 

[drankin]

I pretty much agree with this guy. Let's mind our own country for awhile. If we are going to go to war, let's wipe out the "enemy" or don't bother in first place.

 

[Manchot]

I am a small business owner and have to pay for my own health insurance. It's only $70/m.

Let me guess: you are a young, single male without any preexisting conditions. If I am correct, you have the cheapest health insurance in existence, and it will only continue to rise.

 

[drankin]

Let me guess: you are a young, single male without any preexisting conditions. If I am correct, you have the cheapest health insurance in existence, and it will only continue to rise.

This is true. I'm paying for health insurance for my family and the monthly amount is substantial. But, I'm not complaining (I'm not saying you are, Manchot, just making a statement). I can pick who my health insurance provider is and find the best deal. Just like auto, life, and home insurance. I can choose to have it or not. Unless you are disabled (in which case the American community is responsible for taking care of the individual IMO), Americans are capable of taking care of it themselves and their families if they choose to.

 

[Manchot]

This is true. I'm paying for health insurance for my family and the monthly amount is substantial. But, I'm not complaining (I'm not saying you are, Manchot, just making a statement). I can pick who my health insurance provider is and find the best deal. Just like auto, life, and home insurance. I can choose to have it or not. Unless you are disabled (in which case the American community is responsible for taking care of the individual IMO), Americans are capable of taking care of it themselves and their families if they choose to.

The problem isn't just the disabled: it's all people with preexisting conditions. Many are simply uninsurable, and thus cannot have affordable health care regardless of how much they are willing to pay. Ultimately, this is where the market-based system fails: past events, many of which are beyond your control, can affect your ability to get health care.

With auto insurance, your driving record determines your rates, so personal responsibility plays the dominant role. With life insurance, you can only die once, so the question is moot. With home and property insurance, past events do not really play an important role in determining your rates. (Unless, of course, you have a history of burning down your houses to collect the insurance money.) The health insurance "market" simply goes against basic notions of fairness, because there are a multitude of ways in which something beyond your control can adversely affect you. Do you have Type 1 diabetes? You were at a hospital when someone stuck you with an AIDS- or hepatitis-infected needle? You've had cancer? You're a woman whose entire maternal line has developed breast cancer? You have asthma? It doesn't matter whether any of those things were your fault or not: you're either going to pay exorbitant rates, or you're not going to be able to get insurance at all. It doesn't matter how much you shop around.

 

[drankin]

The problem isn't just the disabled: it's all people with preexisting conditions. Many are simply uninsurable, and thus cannot have affordable health care regardless of how much they are willing to pay. Ultimately, this is where the market-based system fails: past events, many of which are beyond your control, can affect your ability to get health care.

With auto insurance, your driving record determines your rates, so personal responsibility plays the dominant role. With life insurance, you can only die once, so the question is moot. With home and property insurance, past events do not really play an important role in determining your rates. (Unless, of course, you have a history of burning down your houses to collect the insurance money.) The health insurance "market" simply goes against basic notions of fairness, because there are a multitude of ways in which something beyond your control can adversely affect you. Do you have Type 1 diabetes? You were at a hospital when someone stuck you with an AIDS- or hepatitis-infected needle? You've had cancer? You're a woman whose entire maternal line has developed breast cancer? You have asthma? It doesn't matter whether any of those things were your fault or not: you're either going to pay exorbitant rates, or you're not going to be able to get insurance at all. It doesn't matter how much you shop around.

Well, if you start working at a company that offers insurance, you fall into their program regardless of your pre-existing condition. You pay what your coworkers pay. If you work for the city or state, you get even better benefits. So, what would prevent you from working at a company that provides these kinds of benefits?

 

[farmfriend]

So, what would prevent you from working at a company that provides these kinds of benefits?

Educational level, experience, self employment just to name a few.

 

[farmfriend]

I am paying attention to Senator Ron Paul and I *LOVE* this guy.

Everyone should go out and vote for him and get rid of the hacks like Giuliani .

I hate Giuliani .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1420110230915641061&q=ron+paul&total=6192&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6323231741178568391&q=ron+paul&total=6192&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

Id vote for this guy any day of the week.

I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primary, then I will change my party registration to the Constitution party. I've had it with the RINOs the Republicans push on us.

 

[Manchot]

Well, if you start working at a company that offers insurance, you fall into their program regardless of your pre-existing condition. You pay what your coworkers pay. If you work for the city or state, you get even better benefits. So, what would prevent you from working at a company that provides these kinds of benefits?

I don't know about you, but I have a severe problem with someone's preexisting conditions dictating whether they can be self-employed or not. It's unproductive and un-American.

 

[drankin]

I don't know about you, but I have a severe problem with someone's preexisting conditions dictating whether they can be self-employed or not. It's unproductive and un-American.

So, what do you want? Me to pay for your health insurance because you choose to be self-employed? Your health is your responsibility, not mine.

 

[Manchot]

Your health is your responsibility, not mine.

I take issue with that statement. First of all, whether you like it or not, it is your financial responsibility. When the uninsured require health care, who ends up paying for it? The hospitals, who in turn pass on the costs to the consumer. In many cases, people go without basic treatment because they can't afford it, leading to much worse complications later on. This is well-documented as a reason for our high costs. Secondly, I'd argue from a moral standpoint that it is wrong for someone's career options to be limited because of a health condition. That's the "un-American" quality I was referring to.

While I'm at it, let's expand beyond preexisting conditions. What about all the low-end jobs which don't offer health insurance? You can opine all you want about how they could educate themselves and get a better one, but let's face it: there is a segment of our society which will always be in the bottom 10% intelligence-wise, and that's not going to change. Education cannot make someone smarter. At the same time, the job market for these people is being squeezed out of existence. Do they not deserve health care?

 

[drankin]

I take issue with that statement. First of all, whether you like it or not, it is your financial responsibility. When the uninsured require health care, who ends up paying for it? The hospitals, who in turn pass on the costs to the consumer. In many cases, people go without basic treatment because they can't afford it, leading to much worse complications later on. This is well-documented as a reason for our high costs. Secondly, I'd argue from a moral standpoint that it is wrong for someone's career options to be limited because of a health condition. That's the "un-American" quality I was referring to.

While I'm at it, let's expand beyond preexisting conditions. What about all the low-end jobs which don't offer health insurance? You can opine all you want about how they could educate themselves and get a better one, but let's face it: there is a segment of our society which will always be in the bottom 10% intelligence-wise, and that's not going to change. Education cannot make someone smarter. At the same time, the job market for these people is being squeezed out of existence. Do they not deserve health care?

You make it seem like since you are breathing everyone owes you your health. BS. Own your own life. Noone owes you health insurance regardless of your condition. If you are disabled, then the community will take care of you. If you aren't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!. If you can't afford it, then get to where you can. THAT'S AMERICAN. You don't have to be a college grad to work at most government jobs (for example) and a myriad of other places. If you are a good worker, regardless of trade, employers will offer what it takes to get you on. If you work for yourself, then you should have your business in order enough to afford your own insurance. If you feel you are uninsurable then pay for your own meds and care. If you are that bad off that you can do neither, you are disabled, IMO.

 

[Art]

You make it seem like since you are breathing everyone owes you your health. BS. Own your own life. Noone owes you health insurance regardless of your condition. If you are disabled, then the community will take care of you. If you aren't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!. If you can't afford it, then get to where you can. THAT'S AMERICAN. You don't have to be a college grad to work at most government jobs (for example) and a myriad of other places. If you are a good worker, regardless of trade, employers will offer what it takes to get you on. If you work for yourself, then you should have your business in order enough to afford your own insurance. If you feel you are uninsurable then pay for your own meds and care. If you are that bad off that you can do neither, you are disabled, IMO.

Some costs in society are best shared for the common good and IMO public health should be one of them.

For instance if you drive to work you are driving on a road built by public funds. Some of the people who helped pay for that road don't use that road and some don't drive at all but the common good determines their tax dollars should be used to help construct a transport system. If everyone took your attitude then you and your fellow commuters would have to personally pay for the roads you use and so the country would quickly grind to a halt. The same is true of health. Sick people can't work and so the country misses out on their labor and their tax dollars, it also misses out on the productivity of whoever stays at home to tend to them and so it is actually in one's own selfish interest to ensure sick people are treated quickly and returned to the labor pool.

As an interesting anecdote there was a manager in a company I worked for with socialist leanings who didn't wish to avail of the company's private health insurance as he believed on principle he should join the public health queue if ill. It was pointed out to him that the company didn't pay his health insurance for his benefit it was for their own. If he ever needed treatment they wanted to make sure he was back working for them as quickly as possible.

 

[drankin]

I don't entirely disagree with you, Art. I'm more interested in people taking personal responsibility for their health and welfare. Ultimately, who is responsible for ones health? In my opinion, it is the individual first. There is a grey line between ones responsiblity and a communities responsibility to provide care for individuals. A lot, if not a majority, of illness is caused by ones lifestyle. Where does the community draw the line between it's responsibility and ones irresponsible lifestyle?

Personally, I think the crime in our current system is with the pharmacuetical companies and their lack of regulation.

 

[BillJx]

I'm quite happy with our (Canadian) medical system. The public plan covers the basics while dental and other items are covered for some people by employer plans. It isn't perfect, but the biggest cost of illness is the lost work, and my medical coverage won't be cut off. There are political efforts to weaken the public plan, but no Canadian politician dares to openly admit it.

Any health care system faces hard limits. , Modern medicine is so high-tech and expensive that there will never be enough money to go around. There will always be people who need more that what's provided, and sooner. There will always be people who claim that "the system is broken", no matter what the system is. Most developed countries try to distribute the resources more or less equally among their citizens, but maybe that's not the American way. That's your business, I'm not American. You make that decision at the voting booth.

 

[Astronuc]

Chuck Hagel is stepping down in 2008!

Nebraska's Hagel Confirms He Will Bow Out
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14300639

All Things Considered, September 10, 2007 · Sen. Chuck Hagel, the anti-war Republican from Nebraska, made it clear Monday that he will not seek the presidency in 2008. He also confirms he will not seek re-election to the Senate.

 

[mathwonk]

my wife called me with a bumper sticker sighting today:

its a circus scene with a guy and a broom, and caption

"who's going to clean up after the elephants?"but i preferred the direct one i saw last week, a "W" upside down, caption "the moron".