JustinW

If John Cuthber was my real name, you might have a point.

Ahh, touche.

Phi,

 

so you're just chalking it up to greed rather than sound business practice? One set price for all would also mean higher premiums.

John,

 

I am a member of a secret society, but I'm not telling you about it.

You've already said too much.

 

 

 

I think Captain hit the nail on the head.

CharonY,

 

Is it possible that this is due to a change in coverage?

Naw. We still carry the same company, and the package name and benifits are still the same.

 

It depends on what you got before, but under the new provisions preventive care is supposed to be covered without co-pays and deductibles

This right here would be one hell of a reason for an insurance company to raise their premiums. What percentage of testing and treatment would you say is preventative? ALOT, that's how much. This reform is turning out to hurt more than it helps from what I can see so far.

 

Maybe they just want to gauge some money as long as they can?

See, this had popped up in my mind, but I dismissed it due to the competitive nature of the market. If one company's rates skyrocket, you know others will take advantage of this to gain customers. Since no others were taking advantage of this, I just assumed that there was a legitimate reason for the insurance company to raise premiums so high. The agent who came in to discuss the plan said "that she didn't know the exact part of the law that went into affect that caused it, but that she knew it had something to do with it". Whatever that means. Oh, and never fear about the wifey. I found her a policy that was around $134 a month. Though it's not quite as good, it still covers the basics till something better comes along, and it's a whole lot better than $800 a month.

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/sdss_j102915172927_star_shouldnt_exist-82121 Noting the fact that they have found a few similar candidates, I would say that the propulsion idea is out of the question, but the answer to the riddle is still interesting none the less.

JohnB,

 

Actually our dollar is worth slightly more than yours ATM. You say "Employee Insurance" which implies a company is paying some of the premium, how much is the company paying? And if you weren't part of a company fund, what would you be paying? Let's compare apples to apples here.

 

I honestly have to say that I don't know. I imagine that it's probably pretty spendy considering the type of insurance it is, and have no doubt that private insurance over there is cheaper when comparing apples to apples. I kinda thought that was what I was doing when comparing out-of-pocket to out-of-pocket expense.

 

As for not being in a company fund, I had to drop my wife off the plan this last quarter. Something to do with the new health reform law went into affect, which inturn caused insurance companies to raise their premiums. I was paying about 500$ a month when my wife was included, then it jumped to over 800$ a month this past quarter. Once I dropped my wife it went down to 80$ a month. I still haven't made sense out of why married women cost so much more than single women, or what exactly about Obama's new reform law affected these insurance companies so bad. But what I do know is that this scenario coupled with what will happen if the supreme court doesn't overturn the purchase mandate, that this reform will hurt people more than help at least, (at the very least), until the transition is completed. My confidence in that is minimal as well.

 

It's a service, nothing more. From our POV it is no more socialist than having a gov dept making rules about impurities in food. A service that government supplies to its people is a basic standard of food quality and food handling rules. To us, basic healthcare is the same it's just a service gov provides.

The government might regulate unsafe food, but they already regulate unsafe medical practice. The government doesn't mandate that you buy a certain food or ristrict certain foods to cut costs. That WOULD be socialistic, would it not? So I don't believe that basic services are socialistic in the way that I see your healthcare system or the one that is trying to be implimented here.

 

But the point is that we do talk about things and decide what we will authorise our governments to pay for as a general thing. The Obama system wasn't put out there and publicly discussed anywhere near enough.

There's a reason for that. It's because they knew that once it was publicly discussed, that it would have been rejected as it was in the 90's.

 

What on Earth are you talking about? Why would you expect something called the "Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme" to have anything to do with the ambulance service? The PBS is about subsidised pharmaceuticals and nothing else. And as I've said before, we pay a levy on our power bills and get "free" ambulance access anyway.

I didn't say anything about the PBS being connected with ambulance services. I was listing off things that are not covered by your government system. You said that the government doesn't ration. I gave a list of things they do ration.

I said that the government only allows people to have medications that are on the PBS list. The cost of those that are not is charged in full to the patient.

 

Most primary care treatment is covered, which MOST, implies that all are not. Rationing?

Clinical treatments which are not deemed necessary are not covered. Which implies that there is a governing body that dictates what is and isn't. Rationing?

And medical costs incurred overseas are not covered, which is rationing and what I feel is a conflict of the whole idea behind a universal system.

So that was my point in listing those items, not to in anyway link PBS with ambulatory services.

 

The laws that govern how a system is run are voted on by the elected representatives of the people.

Hence, what I said about pollitical survival. Political survival can be detrimental to the very nature of an institution. I don't like the idea of voluntarily opening that perverbial can of worms.

 

Your politicians are not scared of their voters and they bloody well should be. Looking at the Texas Wiki page it looks like you're not too kind to the Dems, bu the electorate should now be saying to the GOP "Get your act in gear or next time your numbers will be so low as to make the Dems look like a major win." If the pressure was on and half the sitting members looking at losing the next election, you bet your arse they will do as they are told.

I agree to an extent. The Repubs are sitting pretty for a couple of different reasons. I think that most of all it is because US Dems are connected to this Liberal socialist movement. Texas, being majorily conservative generally gets people to automatically oppose them. Another reason is that, although there have been some misdeeds by the conservative side of the arena, during the recent resession Texas felt less of an impact than most of the other states. This was attributed to conservatism rather than liberalism. So I can see where a conservative might not have any reason to fear losing their job. With the majority of Texans considering themselves conservative, the idea of switching to Liberal Socialism isn't to even be considered. Kinda like a dirty word.

 

 

It's not glorious, but it does work quite well. We have far fewer surgeons covering the State than you do. Queensland is roughly twice the size of Texas and has a population of about 3 million. The point is this, since all surgeons have to meet standards what does it really matter who does the cutting? Put it another way, since all paramedics are qualified paramedics does it really matter which one drives you to the hospital? My view is a continuation of the same principle.

I think I see what you're saying here, but am not sure that I would pick that over a competitive structure that we see in a free market. When two different surgeons compete for higher pay. That higher pay is a direct reflection of quality of work. Or at least in theory. When government gets involved it tends to change the game a bit.

 

I've already mentioned optical and dental, so I have to wonder if you are actually reading my posts and comprehending them.

 

And this is what it said about dental and optical.Surgical removal of wisdom teeth

(for hospital charges only), and Major eye surgery - including cataract & lens-related services.

 

So the dental is only hospital related for one specific procedure, and the optical is about the same. Most dental and optical still isn't covered that I can see. So what did I miss here?

 

With the smoking drugs it's a case of "Sure, we'll help pay for the drugs to help you quit. But we'll only do it once per year". To keep paying for the things would be like allowing the person to continue to bum smokes. "Giving up smoking" is an intention, not a lifestyle and we support good intentions but not lifestyles.

Ahhh, good intentions. I hate to get off subject, but something came to mind when I read this. I forgot who said it, but I once heard someone say that the most evilest of acts come from one man's good intentions. Whether those intentions were misguided or not, an evil act can always be nailed down to someone's good intention. That probably has no relevance in this case, but I thought I would share it anyway.

 

 

And to put a reality spin on things, 6 months ago when I had a tooth out, a molar, it cost me about $350 all up. What would your bill be?

I had a friend get one pulled out about 2 years ago for 80$. I just asked another friend of mine, who said that he had one pulled in the next town over, and it was a little more than 150$. So price may have went up in recent years, but still fairly inexpensive compared to alot of places.

 

You also seem to be labouring under the miscomprehension that "Universal Health Care" is supposed to cover everything when it isn't. The point of the Australian system is to provide timely and affordable basic healthcare to all citizens.

I can also understand this. But I'm trying to get an idea of what you pay:what you get, compared to what we pay:what we get.

 

 

Because they have to treat everybody and private hospitals don't. Duh! But seriously the waiting times are more due to lack of qualified surgeons etc that anything else. It doesn't matter how many ORs a hospital has if it doesn't have the staff to operate them 24/7.

And you don't think that competition would drive employment. A hospital employee here in the US has benifits to consider when making a choice on where to work. Do your hospital employees get offered any benifits?

 

 

Your current system doesn't cover everybody for the basics and costs some $2 trillion per year and you have God knows how many people every year going bankrupt due to health costs.

Can you show me that a majority of these people actually paid medical costs? If I went broke, and wanted to play a system that is easily playable, I would file for brankruptsy and list it as being due to medical costs. Hell, I can do that right now if I wanted to, but I won't. My own father did that back in the early 90's when his restaraunt went under. And he never paid a dime towards medical. He used the bill from one of my surgeries as a reason. All you have to do is show that you owe, not that you've actually paid anything. So it's a little hard for me to believe that all of these people went bankrupt paying their medical bills.

 

 

If you bit the bullet and forced the change to our system you would have one that costs $1 trillion, covers everybody and nobody would be going bankrupt. How is this not a good idea???

Where does it show that Obama's new reform will actually cut costs? I've heard people say it, but it has since been debunked by a lot of folks.

 

In general the "Freedom of Choice" under private insurance is a fantasy. We the general public don't know enough to make a true choice.

I get what you're saying. But right now there is no one stopping those in the general public, that do know, from making a decision. Also I tend to think that it a persons responsibility to LEARN enough to make a sound decision.

 

iNow,

 

Your experience is an outlier, Justin. For the past decade, or so, I've worked for a few fairly large international corporations, and my payments per week for coverage with family have been closer to $40-50.

Yes, and I was paying closer to $125 a week. With my wife off the policy it is now about $20 a week. What gives? You can blame it on the insurance company, but I would rather think that there was a reason behind it, and not just the greed of insurance companies.

I believe it is a mixed opinion at best. I'm all for it. There would be a few problems to hash out, but I don't think they're big ones.

JohnB

what you get as "extras" for $57.40 per week from the Medibank Private company.

Man, I only pay 20$ a week for myself and my three children through my employee insurance. Of course we're probably dealing with a currency difference.

 

 

Disliking how a piece of legislation was passed and being against the concept behind the new law are two very different things.

They may be two different things, but they are two different things that a majority of Americans have in common in this particular case.

 

 

The Dems would have been far better off putting it out for public discussion years ago where each part could be discussed openly and the electorate convinced.

Agreed. For the simple fact that if they would have done it this way, it probably would have taken on more of a free market solution. It's not that the people don't want others to be covered. It's just that we don't want the government oversight in this matter to become so entrenched that there is no flexibility or choice. In my view the whole principle of a limited government is to avoid the tyranny that other nations have experienced throughout history. If someone would suggests that we have our own problems, you bet we do, but they are not problems that We The People cannot address.

 

 

Being hard headed due to pride or ideology is neither logical nor sensible.

It seems that some form their ideologies based on emotion. With healthcare they feel that it is unfair and downright cruel not to provide it to everyone. I personally, believe that feelings should start a person in a direction but the principles that constitute my ideology should set the standard. If we were to always make policy based on emotional reactions, policy making would turn into a rollercoaster ride. And it seems that the two ideologies at work today in US politics seem to either be one way or the other. One it seems would rather have the government take care of most problems, while the other side would rather limit the government to allow the people to come up with a solution. Any rational person can understand that these two things have to blend, but we tend to disagree to which side the blend should lean.

 

 

Firstly socialistic? Are you serious? Are the Interstate highway systems socialistic? The Military? The Federal Police?

Serious as a heart attack. Interstate highways are not socialistic because they are not mandating that you buy a product to so others can use that highway. The equivalent to that analogy would be the government mandating that you buy poor people a vehicle so can they can use those highways. The military has nothing to do with either one. A country will be conquered in short order without a military. What about the federal police. Didn't I say something earlier about efficiency and convenience? The big cry for this healthcare reform was that those on the left felt that it was everyones RIGHT to have healthcare. Police protection is not a right. So again it can fall back to efficiency and convenience.

 

 

The government is paying a very large fortune for healthcare, are you saying that this spending should have no controls?

I'm not saying that. I am saying that those controls should be decided by the people through their elected representatives rather than some government bureaucracy. Name one US bureaucracy that runs efficiently and doesn't get worse as time goes by. By it's very nature, the longer it exists the more it's goal becomes about political survival rather than efficiency.

 

Not to mention those polititions could have done something about this large fortune that they are spending. But instead of addressing the problems behind the spending, they would rather create a crisis that supports their ideology in order to drive the government in the direction that they preffer. Look up how much waste is estimated to be in our medicaid, medicare, social security, and food stamp programs. Add to that the huge amounts of fraud that those programs are eat up with and tell me if that doesn't seem like it should have been the firstt thing to deal with. Instead this fight is more ideological than about the actual problem, at least where spending is conscerned. Like I've stated before. I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the solutions proposed. From a political viewpoint it goes against the principles that most Americans have stood for in the past.

 

 

Whether public or private, you're going to get sliced by one of the top 10 cutters in the State, does it really matter which one it is?

So you're saying that ten doctors cover a whole state? I'm not sure what you're point is with this paragragh. It sounds about like everything is roses over there in Oz. Could it be that wonderfully glorious?

 

 

The true "choice" that private insurance gives you is that you don't have to talk to the surgeons with lousy bedside manner. As the nurses all do the same training at the same facilities (and in our system the public hospitals are the teaching hospitals) I have complete confidence in their abilities and will get the same high standard of care regardless of which hospital I'm in.

So people pay over 54$ a week so they can go to a doctor who speaks them nicer? What about people who are in an accident that requires cosmetic surgery. Is that covered? Or do those people left with half a face if they don't have private insurance. Is optical covered? Dental?

 

Thirdly we don't control by rationing, but by the amount of the refund or subsidy.

Really? Then what's up with the PBS list? Is that not considered rationing by limiting access to medications? Anything that is not a PBS item, the patient has to pay in full, as far as I understand. Ambulance service isn't covered. Only most Primary Care treatment which implies that some are not. Clinical treatments which are not deemed necessary are not covered. Which implies that there is a governing body that dictates what is and isn't. (which is a major part of my argument against) And medical costs incurred overseas. Which doesn't make sense to me. If it is so God-Awfull and morally right that everyone should have care, then it seems like a contradiction to leave those hanging that are just out of the country at the time. Doesn't it?

 

If sonebody wishes to make "Giving up smoking" their lifestyle then that is their choice, it is not up to the rest of us to provide smokes and drugs to support their choice. If we didn't do it this way we would be constantly paying for people to have the Champix and they would continue smoking anyway. We're happy to give a hand up, but we aren't so big on hand outs.

I see this differently. You have the option not to give those people smokes. It is your choice to do it or not. But instead of standing up for your choice not to give a bum a smoke and making them take responsibility for themselves, you let the government mandate that you pay for their perscription, eliminating their own responsibility when most will ultimately still bem smokes from people. So looking at the big picture, what did that really solve? And would the comfort of not having to give someone a smoke be worth going against my principles? To me it wouldn't.

 

 

We give heroin addicts free needles but not Diabetics.

We do this in places too. It is meant to keep down diseases spread through the sharing of needles, but I'm not sure how much of an impact it has had.

 

 

The German factory car costs $3465 to make.

The English factory car costs $2815 to make.

The French factory car costs $3420 to make.

The Canadian factory car costs $3673 to make.

The American factory car costs $6719 to make.

I can see this point, BUT(and it's a big but) there are a few things that make this understandable. America makes a lot more per capita than most other countries. Even devided up into states, the individual states make more per capita than most other countries. In a free market system that is not regulated to control cost, one can spend their money however they wish. Anyone who is ever gotten a raise at work knows that the more you make the more you spend. Is this not true? Now, if that is true then why wouldn't it also be the same with healthcare? Another point to this is that without restriction there can be more amenities in a product or service. Over in Oz country you can see this with some of the private services that are not covered by the public system. These types of services are covered by our private insurance, they just add to the cost(value=comfort in this case). You get where I'm going with this? And all of this considered I still didn't add waste and fraud. Which is one of my biggest pet peaves about our system, because no one seems to want to do anything about it.

 

Are these not plausable and acceptable reasons for the higher costs? And I'm not against the lowering of costs. I think it should be one of our biggest priorities, but not at the risk of going against our principles of limited government and individual freedom and responsibilty.

 

Fifthly, down here they don't.

Then why are waiting times longer for public hospitals? Nurse:patient ratios are higher in public hospitals, which weighs on cleanliness and efficiency. And private hospitals have more amenities and better sights (you can't say that comfort level doesn't weigh on a ptients . I also read something awhile back on birth conditions being better in private hospitals, but that is more of a specific, which can go both ways once specific outcomes are taken into consideration.

 

 

I will gladly put my life in the hands of the staff of any public hospital in this country without fear.

It's good to see someone express pride for their own country. Here lately I've heard too many bashing something great.

 

 

Zapatos,

 

Well, maybe on paper, but not in reality.

Oh okay. I'm back in my fantasy world again. Even those that were not officially passed by congress had their approval. If they didn't those actions could have easily been defunded. And I assert that that is what would have happened if they didn't. My point was that a president doesn't dictate to the public, but rather the other way around in an indirect way.

Ophiolite,

 

Scourge stated that (s)he had evidence against atheism. (I presumed this to mean against the atheist position, since clearly atheism exists.) Therefore it was perfectly fair to ask be shown this evidence. It does not require a reciprocal action, since I made no statement about having evidence against theism.

Ah, I concede to your fabulous point. You have my humblest of appologies.

 

Moontanman,

 

Hard stuff please...

Aww, where's the fun in that?

 

 

Atheist Church? Churches fried chicken? what are you talking about?

You didn't know there were atheist churches? Once I saw that atheists were getting organized I wondered what their organizations were like. But since I don't go to religious churches I saw no reason to go to non religious ones either. I was just curious. Since there are so many atheists in the science community, I figured there might be some that attend these functions and could give some insight on the goings on behind closed doors. I'm just as afraid of non religious cults as I am religious ones. And I wouldn't take this part of my post to seriously. If only I could project facial expression and tone of voice with every sentence. I think people would get tired of Emoticons pretty quick if I did though.

 

I try...

You succeed sir. I was once told though that moderation is the key to success. I wonder if there is any truth to that? I guess it depends on what the topic is. Whether it's religion or atheism, I wonder how moderation would affect one's outlook on life. I believe that everyone would be agnostic then. What do you think?

 

 

njaohnt,

Me too. I think that he is talking about places just for atheists.

 

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/church_of_atheism

 

http://churchofatheism.webs.com/

 

Do you need more? And meant to include organizations as well, but the churches seemed so ironic that I couldn't help myself.

 

 

Moontanman,

 

i will point out that the bible is demonstrably wrong about so much it calls into question everything else to anyone who has any flicker of rational thought.

THIS is an excellent point. Everytime I use it though it seems to be ignored. I wish you better luck.

Correct Justin, it isn't "free" per se, but it does operate without out of pocket expenses in many cases.

 

Taxation works very differently down here. As we are a Federation, there are strict limits on what taxes and levies a State may impose. But if we keep that out for the moment and just talk about income tax then the graduated scale is here. Nothing for the first $6k, then 15% for income from 6k to 37k, then 30% for the 37k to 80k bit and then 37% for the 80k to 180k part and finally 45% on anything over 180k. The Medicare levy is on top of that by 1.5% however if a person has an income under about 18.9k they don't pay the levy at all.

It seems that is quite a lot, although we aren't much better off. How much extra do you have to pay for insurance to suppliment that which government doesn't cover?

 

 

Here is part of the problem. If you elect a President to do as he is told, then why bother at all? You haven't elected somebody to make any decisions or govern in any way so it's a wasted effort. Besides that, it is bull. America didn't decide on the 8th December 1941 that it was going to war with Japan, FDR told America that she was at war. Game over.

Presidents can make some decisions, but decision making is highly limited. They can't just decide to do whatever they want. We have a congress. We elect representatives to represent what the people want. They have the ultimate power over what gets done. FDR didn't tell America anything. You can only go to war with a majority vote from congress. And you can bet your ass that those congressmen heard from their constituents about which way they should vote. Of course congressmen don't have to listen, but then they risk getting fired come election time. This is not a socialistic country, although it's getting to be more and more so, and it's damn sure not a communist country where political leaders get to dictate the public.

 

 

Why is it considered dictatorial to say to the States that if they want a slice of the pie then they will have to make some changes? Along the lines of standardising the rules so that the insurance companies can't screw the people any more. There's an old saying that "He who pays the piper calls the tune", if the Feds are supplying the cash why can't they make the rules?

For the exact reason stated above. That would take a vote from congress, which is voiced through them by the people. You could claim that the people have already spoken with this last passing of the healthcare law, but did you notice how that law was passed. Behind closed doors, with a document so long to be barely readable in time for the public to form an opinion? That didn't seem very transparent to me. That is why it is such an outrage now, and also the reason for this push of repeal.

 

 

But seriously, aside from some vague hand waving objections, doesn't our system (as I've described it) seem to work better then yours?

This is where I am hardheaded. Maybe it's pride of country mixed with ideological principle, but hardheaded just the same.

 

First, your system goes against a majority of this country's principles because it is rather socialistic. Once government gets control of something you are left to their mercy. That is something people don't want here. Especially not with their healthcare.

 

Second, you already pay enough in taxes for healthcare. Then on top of that, you have to pay extra for an insurance to suppliment government coverage just to have some choice in the matter.

 

Third, your system controls price by rationing, which is dictated by a government body. Controling price and controling costs are two different things. Controling price can deminish value of product or service.

While controling cost can be implemented in a way that lowers price yet keeps value at a norm. Lets take perscription medication for example. Your system can ration what type of medication is available, which can lead to inefficiency and lowering choice option for those who can't afford an extra insurance to suppliment the government allowances.

 

 

Fourth, how can you prove to me that our quality of care is lower than yours? And before you use infant mortality rates or life expectancy, just know that I will argue that those numbers make an inadequate comparison, since they use the same criteria to compare completely different systems.

 

 

Fifth, why is it that private hospitals outperform public hospitals, hands down? Why ask for more of something that gets outperformed by what we already have a majority of? Now I'm not against looking for a way to help those that need help. I just don't like the ways that have been proposed.

 

 

Sixth,

Right now the US Feds spend some $2 trillion on healthcarespread over the various States.

By no means does this new reform cut costs. Can you imagine how many companies will drop their employees from their company health insurance plans? The tax penalty for not providing their employees insurance is alot less than the premiums they pay. Which way do you think they will go? So why use what we already spend as an argument in support of it? I have proposed something about the cost aspect in another thread, (which didn't settle well and I'm sure you've already seen), but there was a model that came out that projected a value of money spent. A so called bang for your buck approach that reflects the value you get out of dollars spent in a free market. It showed that we spend more per capita in corrolation to what we make per capita. It showed that we are still in line with value per dollar spent. And part of this 2 trillion you mention is wastefull spending and fraud. I believe a huge chunk of that could be saved if we reduced waste and cracked down on fraud. But it seems that that is too much to ask. Instead, a liberal left wants to socialize the system because somehow they think government bureaucracy is an efficient tool. I'd like to see an example of that in the US government.

 

It was in the thread that you said this:

Justin, you don't understand freedom at all. I'd love to be an employer in the US. So long as there was a good health plan I could treat my workers like the slaves they are.

and I didn't comment at the time about this:

Just like a fire brigade, ambulances, honest cops and an uncorrupted judiciary

but I think I will now. None of these are rights. We pay a fire brigade to put out your house when it's on fire, not rebuild the house. Just like an emergency room, here, does not fix you entirely, just addresses the problem at hand. We pay police to try and keep the peace and enforce the law. Their protection is not a right either. This is why your family cannot sue if they DON'T protect you. These are matters of efficiency and convenience. Not matters of rights and responsibilities. In my view healthcare falls into this category. The same as house or life insurance. It is your responsibility to provide house insurance to fix your house when you need to. It is also your responsibility to buy health insurance in case you need to fix yourself if you need to. Taking that which comes from the sweat of anothers brow is little different than slavery. Or thievery at the very least when there is nothing gained by the person doing the sweating. Forcing such a thing would mean that the idea of personal property is null and void.

 

 

I don't think they are vague hand waving objections. I think they are pointed lagitimate objections that are blown off way too easily.

 

 

edit:as afterthought. I haven't gotten an answer for this yet, so I will ask again. Some claim that if people's healthcare is provided to them for "free", that this will open people up to be more free. I ask, how? And, do people with universal care make more of themselves than people that don't?

There's a special saying for people like you, and it's "your creating the world you want to live in

Must not be too special or more people would have heard it before. Maybe it just needs to be a little catchier before people start to pick up on it.

 

If your not going to bother to even put a tiny bit of energy into caring about other people, its likely people will treat you the same, so if that is truly the type of world you want to live in, you can keep acting that way if you so desire, but many people know better and know how a society works, so they at least put some effort into trying to support others.

Mandating that I treat people differently because of the color of there skin isn't right and I don't see why people think it is. The rules are equal for everyone. The problem is in how those people treat others, and even then shouldn't be dictated.

 

 

Being poor is not a genetic disease or condition

My point was that it is handed down from the parents. Either that or it is direct result of bad decision making. Am I wrong?

 

The genetic condition analogy was to say that other things are passed down by parents. I don't know why their bad choices shouldn't be handed down also without someone calling for a rule change that gives one race an advantage over the other. After all the talk about equality I would think this would be against that principle.

 

A white person will often get hired over a black person, probably because people like you happen to be a manager, and their ancestors were never educated after slavery was abolished, so they lacked education to teach to the next generation, and being poor, they could not send their kids to school since public schools use to actually cost money.

Are you saying that this is still the case? If not then why use it as an excuse?

 

Do you think it's right for a person to go to jail just because they can't get a job and don't have enough money to go to school?

WHO goes to jail because they can't get a job or go to school. That makes absolutely no sense, unless you're using that as an excuse to commit crime. Which is also unacceptable.

 

If you think about it, it's kind of hard for black prisoners to not dislike white people.

If you think about it, the flip side is true as well.

JohnB,

 

I get this free because it is paid from my taxes.

Then it's obviously not free, but just out of curiousity, what percentage of income do you pay in taxes?

 

 

Frankly I think Obama should grow a pair and tell all States that "These are the new rules, and anybody who doesn't want to play along gets no Federal healthcare money."

This is why we shouldn't do it in the first place. He doesn't get to tell us, we tell HIM. If people want a dictator they can go somewhere else.

 

 

Federal money comes with the responsibility to follow Federal rules.

Are federal rules not being followed? I didn't know spending money was against the rules.

John,

 

Now, apart from an old book, do you have any evidence?

Does circumstantial count? Or are you looking for the hard stuff?

 

If circumstantial at least counts a little, I believe that Moontanman hinted at it here in post 254:

So far all we have to go on is the accounts given to people who have converted, even Buddhists, who is i am not mistaken do not believe in a personal god, report the same peace and joy and change of world view that other religions claim you get by "truly" believing and converting...

The fact that people all over the world report the same thing oughta mean something. At least it fits the criteria that Ophi layed down for evidence here:

Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis.

Near death experiences ar also measurable, repeatedly observed, consistent with a hypothesis in the supernatural. So even though not physical evidence, circumstantial seems to be plausable.

 

Or we can go with my first thought, that it could all come from a neurological reaction.

 

 

Ophiolite,

 

So what is your evidence against atheism?

Interesting question... What your evidence for atheism? Just the lack of evidence for theism? That doesn't seem quite fair.

 

 

Atheist churches keep popping up and I'm wondering if the sandwhiches are any good. I'm curious of what they talk about. I would be highly dissapointed if it had nothing to do with a supernatural mystery.

 

 

 

Moontanman,

And you said you were not here to convert us... God, at least your version of him, is a monster who delights in trickery and in making the goal unobtainable, do you really think it's fair to blind the very people who need the sight the most? So sad....

I always enjoy the inspiration of your words.

Moontanman,

 

I stand corrected on the numbers. I think I know where I got that number confused now that I look back. I believe my thoughts were mixed up with population by the millions with percentage. The 12.6% equals out to roughly 38 million. I think that's where I got confused. (That'll teach me for speaking without double checking myself)(Probably not)

 

 

 

Questionposter,

Are you serious? Ok, most basic but common example in the world

You're damn right I'm serious. We weren't talking about the world. We were talking about prison populations and convictions rates. I knew somehow that poor parents would be brought into the mix. So now we have to be responsible for peoples parents being poor? I've always found this excuse to be outrageous. Parents are responsible for passing down genetic conditions to their children, we don't blame things like that on society, why is it different for living conditions? It seems as though it would be parents responsibility on both scores. In todays society everyone has an equal opportunity. An equally poor white person has the same exact opportunity as an equally poor black person. That condition is a direct result on the decisions of the parents. God forbid the time comes when people have to accept responsibility for themselves. That would just be too cruel.

 

 

I don't think you have any sort of degree in law.

 

You don't need a law degree for that. You just need experience.

 

Whether or not black people actually commit crimes, we can't determine, but we can determine they get convicted at a much higher rate

In my mind conviction reflects action. Are you suggesting that black people are WRONGLY convicted at such an extremely disproportianate rate?

 

If someone is getting convicted more, I would say that they need to quit commiting crimes. If someone is disproportionately poorer, I would say, get a freakin' job. Why is not that simple? Who is the cause? You? Me? People we know? It seems like the most popular excuse is to blame it on the white man. Might as well.

questionposter,

 

If you think everyone has an equal opportunity, you really haven't seen much of the world and you need more time away form the computer.

You explain how and I'll tell you how your wrong.

 

 

That information wasn't even from me

Well, you should watch out who you listen to then, because the school stipulation was flat out wrong. Which makes the whole justification suspect in my mind.

 

 

the fact that black people are more likely to be convicted and sent to prison than a white person, and that was part of his explanation, and I don't see how its illogical.

Did you ever think that black people commit more crime than whites at a level that reflects convictions. Also the current population of blacks in the US is over 40%, 43 I think it was but will have to look again for the exact number, which automatically puts them at a disadvantage where numbers are conscerned.

questionposter,

 

Those circumstances could fit a white person just as easily.

 

And I have never heard of those kinds of parole stipulations except in juvenile cases. In any case, in the free world, I don't think we should set our rules to suppliment peoples situations. Everyone has an equal opportunity, it just depends on what you do with that opportunity that decides your fate. These people chose to go to prison. The consequence of that is parole stipulations. Most of which only deal with work, weapons, and drugs. They don't mandate that adults go to college because they can't mandate someone to buy a service or product.

 

If they can't handle parole, then they shouldn't go to prison. The rape is a different story. Since they are under OUR lock and key this makes it OUR responsibility to keep them from harm.

imatfaal,

 

Stop imprisoning 1 percent of the adult population and then the state/government might be able to control those that are in prison.

I can definitely agree with that. I particularly think the war on drugs is mostly to blame for the amount of people that are inprisoned in the US. It's so harsh in some states that you get less time for violent crimes than you do a charge. It seems rediculous to me.

 

 

John,

 

You said you doubted that it would cut down on gang violence. I still believe that it would. I'm not saying that it would stop it, but I think it might have an impact if the main reason for joining a gang is taken away.

 

 

 

The truth is that people form cliques. In prison those can become gangs.

 

Sure there would still be gangs. People will always gather around what's familiar. How am I arguing against myself? I've never said that it would stop gangs or gang violence. I was just saying that it would have an impact. You said yourself that the most prevailant factor in gang admission was race. If that is taken away you don't think it would have an impact?

 

 

Well, my best guess is that there were gangs, but you didn't know about them.

They must hide pretty well. I can see it now, gangs are forming through out the woods of America. (man they need to make that into a movie) Of course it would have to be a sci-fy movie, because there were no gangs where I grew up. I knew just about everyone in my community. The town I grew up in only had a church and a post office. It's not likely the preacher was cliqueing up against Mrs. Mack. The nearest town was about 20 miles away and that only had 1 store, a church, and a school. Trust me, if there was a gang I would have known about it.

 

 

"To me a gang is a silly thing. I always thought that people need to stand on their hind legs like men instead of needing others to fight your battles for you, "

That works just fine- until you come up against a gang who, for example, want to take your money.

I guess. I keep forgetting that things work differently in bigger populations.

Valuing such impersonalness and adherence to rules lead to the killing of many Jews, and I think my closeness to this reality strongly effects my judgment, compared to the young who are so distant from what happened that they are not emotionally aroused as I am, but instead believe being impersonal and efficient and enforcing rules is a good thing. Generations so separate us we are living oceans apart, and I am grieving for something dear that we have lost. We once had a completely different experience of being US citizens, than we have today. I fear terribly what will happen when my generation dies, and that memory of personal liberty and power is lost forever.

I believe I understand what you are saying here. I have had similar conversations with Rigney about such things. And though I'm still considered young, in my latter 20s, the way I was raised instilled a certain feeling about the way things used to be. A feeling of respect for the way things used to be, and then dispair at the thought that things must change.

 

 

As I experience the changes in the US, I am very afraid for future generations. So really, is being impersonal and controlled by rules, something we should value? What effects our judgment of such things?

At least some rules are necessary and some things should be impersonal. I believe that justice should always be blind(impersonal), and that rules should be made with a certain amount of thought for those that may be effected. I have thought about what effects our judgement and believe that it is something we hit on in the "right vs wrong" thread. I believe that our reasoning is learned from events and people that influence our lives.

 

I was trying to explain how this new liberal movement that we are seeing stems directly from communist/socialist view points. There are those who claim that such views will make us freer, but I would rather choose to learn from history rather than someone's analytical percepetions. If there is one thing that history teaches us well, it is what not to do.

 

I want to say, often a poster will really piss me off, and then I realize someone I think of as friend has written it, and suddenly my understanding of what was said is totally changed. Has this ever happened to you? Like not only is it easier to come down hard on someone we care nothing about, but also how we understand each other really depends on how well we know each other. Like we can go from intense anger to laughing, when we realize who wrote something, because our understanding of what was said is now also an understanding of the person who wrote it.

I think another problem is the written word itself. We miss out on meanings that can be expressed by gestures and tone of voice. There has been many a time I've pissed someone off by typing something I thought of as funny.

John,

 

I doubt that.

Race is the most determining factor of gang admission in prisons. Why doubt the truth?

 

 

They would find something to form "gangs" about.

This I can agree with. While the most prevailant reason to join gangs in prison is racially motivated. All beings have a tendancy to go towards what they're familiar with. But I do agree that if that reason was taken that they would probably find a new one.

 

 

I grew up in an area where there were precious few people who were not white protestants- so they formed gangs about whether their parents were first generation immigrants to the town or not

I had the good fortune to grow up in an area where there were no gangs. To me a gang is a silly thing. I always thought that people need to stand on their hind legs like men instead of needing others to fight your battles for you, but I guess that concept is more of an antiquity these days.

 

 

imatfaal,

 

This is a misuse of statistics - the chance is not strictly cumulative nor is it random. Unfortuntately those likely to be sexually assaulted and raped are identified by their persecutors at an early stage of their incarcerations.

This is the reason that most of those who I have known that go to prison start a fight as soon as they walk through the door. It's better to let it be known that you're not going to put up with anyones crap before they decide that your nothing but a punk.(which by the way, punk means something totally different in prison) Which is kind of ironic once you think about it.

 

Prison rape is an horrific feature of American prisons - I would hope that this human tragedy would not be used to advance a political agenda for racial segregation.

Got any better ideas?

 

Moontanman,

 

My racial make up is mostly Native American, Scots/Irish, Melungeon, and no doubt some more recent African as well. Where would you put me, what does your racist world view tell you...

You say that most that you have met consider you white. Well if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...your going in with the white eyes I'm sure.

There could be no man driving trucks in the era of dinosaurs. Either that or he was too fat and weighed too much.

Seargent Bilko,

 

Its not just pollution that we are outsourcing to China in our deperate hunger for cheap goods, its health and safety in general also. Coal mines around the world are closing so that we can import cheap coal from China. One of the things that make it cheap are the lack of safety for the miners. According to google searches, fatalities in Chinese coal mine accidents represent more than 50% of mining deaths worldwide.

 

Being in the mine safety industry, I keep a fairly good track on these numbers. Over the past decade that number has risen to about 80%. After the mine act in the 70s, mine fatalities dropped dramatically here in the US. It inturn improved the overall industry, allowing it to better prosper. I have always wondered why China hasn't done the same.

First of all, what is the political angle.

 

And secondly would wood chips produce the amount of compression need to turn a motor.

 

And third, a motor would have to be redesigned entirely to compensate for a fuel system.

 

 

 

edit: cross posted with Captain, and completely agree.

John,

 

If not, what would the separation achieve?

At the very least it might cut down on gang violence, which is mostly racial.

I ran across an essay that explains some of the history behind American socialism, and I think does a fair job of explaining how subtle changes can build a movement.

 

http://www.newworldorderinfo.com/socialism/1114/managed-truth-the-great-danger-to-our-republic/#more-1114

 

Comments?

You also have to be presented with the option. Wings may be the best thing that could ever happen to man, but if no mutations led in that direction, then we would never get the chance to select for them or not.

Also there would be no feasable reason for a human to need wings. There is nothing to be gained, except that it would be friggin' awesome.