Aristotle on Politics (Kebir Blue)

Nice video smokes.

Solomon, your country is ready. I'll put it on the market on the next update, bid the minimum.

It's midnight on east coast and it's not there yet. I'll be around for a couple/3 hours or so and I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Thanks again, you rock

No problem. It is there now. Send me a message to Inannas Temple when you have the chance.

One more post and I'm done with this topic.

1) PH- Yes a single payer would be better than the current bill. A single payer could save money if care for the elderly was rationed, however I would like to see reforms based on a free market model. The current bill will not save money, but will take us to a single payer eventually.

2) I like the fair tax as well. We tax work and savings, but not consumption which I think is a mistake. A combo 11% income / consumption tax would be preferable to the current system as well.

3) SG - There are forces ( most of the political establishment ) that are purposely trying to weaken this country.

4) Parsifal - I disagree with your assertion that Gov't is neither good or bad in of itself, just as capitalism is not inherently good or bad. Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, and this force used by statist governments have murdered millions of people and created most of the misery and poverty in the world today. For that reason, government power, although necessary, must be strictly limited. In comparison, capitalism is based on voluntary exchange, and individual rights. The capacity to enslave or murder others is limited, and people have a choice in who they do business with. The problems with capitalism result from having an interventionist government, when people of means can influence policies to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Danny,
As long as the demographics are changing as they are we will need all to be covered. And yes there will be rationing. (there is now). There are some things that could be done to streamline treatment, the primary one being having a national system of record keeping--would save about 15% However there are those who feel this would be an infringement on personal freedom.

A consumption tax is regressive and would be more of a burden on the poor and middle class. Closing loopholes such as mortgage interest might be better.

The political establishment are not just the politicians. It's primarily those who donate millions during elections and on important votes and then expect something in return. These include business organizations, unions, and other special interest groups, both right and left. Change won't take place until we have term limits where politicians can't vote in order to maintain their power. No real substantive change will occur until we remove their power incentive.

I reiterate that gov't and corps are neither inherently good or bad. They are institutions created by humans and thus have certain inate flaws built in. But primarily it is the people who run these institutions that are responsible for making either decisions that are for the betterment of all or that are only concerned about their own power and greed.

Capitalism is not always based on voluntary exchange and individual rights. You have to go back to my post on what is the purpose of the corp. Who does it serve?

Single payer. Single payer! Can anyone give a coherent explanation as to why they think "single payer" would be good for our health care delivery system, yet would not also be good for our hair cutting and styling system, nor for our food delivery system, nor for the delivery system of a manufactured good like refrigerators?

Or does anyone here think we in the US should have single payer hair care? Single payer hunger care? Single payer foodcooling care?

Why exactly is single-payer a bad thing Jojo, opposed to what we have now, or before ObamaCare?

No successful answers so far!

No legitimate questions either. What did you expect?

Only one question, to keep things simple!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Can anyone give a coherent explanation as to why they think "single payer" would be good for our health care delivery system, yet would not also be good for our hair cutting and styling system, nor for our food delivery system, nor for the delivery system of a manufactured good like refrigerators? <!-/Quote-!>

I just wanted to know why you think it won't be good for our health care delivery system.

I understand if you feel opposed to it, it is a choice. But I don't see why you want to refuse a solution to a problem without presenting one of your own. Seems like wasteful conversation, we can argue all day what is good and bad about x,y, or z. But if we come to the conclusion that x,y, or z is bad, we need to start talking about solutions.

So you oppose single payer. Okay we get it smart guy. Now you want to school everyone on why it is bad, and why anyone who wants it is insane and has no brain. But what do you propose in its place. We can all agree that our healthcare system is messed up, so offer a better solution to single payer(if you can), not just attack something that you have allowed the media to make you believe is a bad thing.

If you can't provide a solution, talking and arguing a lose lose conversation is a waste of time. Who cares what is good and bad, what works or doesn't, what is coherent and what is not. I want to know what you think IS coherent and good for our healthcare delivery system. Can you do that, or are you interested in dancing in circles.

But... ok smart guy, I'll do you one better. I actually coherently explain why I think Single payer is good for our healthcare delivery system.

Then I'll ignore you while you jump up and down pulling your hair out trying to oppose a coherent response. Then I will check in from time to time to see if you can offer a better more inclusive solution than single payer.

1. Everybody in,nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period. The desire of 81% of all Californians, as reported in a January, 2007 Field Poll.

2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage goes with you.

3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.

4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.

5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair reimbursement.

6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the autonomy to make decisions on what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.

7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, a single-payer, universal system.

8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.

9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.

10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or stock wealth or company profits.

And while we are on the subject, I don't know about single payer hair care, but single payer food cooling sounds promising. Actually, I've never really thought of it until now that you mention it. If we could power just one single super huge energy efficient freezer, imagine how that would positively impact the environment. Great thinking Jojo.

With so many people starving and running low on food, so many freezers are running for absolutely no reason or they are grossly under-filled. Sharing cooling capacity would essentially turn off a bazillion unused freezers. Imagine how many people have empty freezers yet run them just to allow the fridge to keep the milk cool. If we could gain some traction emailing congress about this Nix would be proud.

So much to comment on, so little time.

1. Parsifal, I don't see a lack of capital or infrastructure as roadblocks to economic development. They will be built as they are needed and if they are needed. Infrastructure does little to benefit people who are starving and even less if they are built as a precursor to economic development because they are built at the expense of a people, of individuals, that cannot support it. Capital benefits the nation, but an embrace of capitalism - in addition to political stability - would be the single most important step along this road. However, the main problem is the lack of political stability and I imagine the corruption of said government. Capitalism does not solve this problem. Nationalism - as in a respect for laws by citizens and officials - is necessary for the development of political stability, but there are no easy answers or simple solutions. The vicious circle does not lie in either the lack of capital or infrastructure, but in the lack of political stability. Markets of untapped cheap labor will lure in capital and lead to the development of infrastructure, but so long as there is a corrupt, unstable, interventionist government, there will be no improvement.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I reiterate that gov't and corps are neither inherently good or bad. They are institutions created by humans and thus have certain inate flaws built in. But primarily it is the people who run these institutions that are responsible for making either decisions that are for the betterment of all or that are only concerned about their own power and greed.

Capitalism is not always based on voluntary exchange and individual rights. You have to go back to my post on what is the purpose of the corp. Who does it serve?<!-/Quote-!>

2. The corporation serves the individual(s) invested in it by earning money. That is the purpose. That is the only purpose. All other interests are secondary. The failure in the primary leads to a failure in all secondary purposes, but the primary purpose, profit for those invested, is first and foremost as it should be.

3. On the level of taxation, the fairest system as it would appear to be would be a proportional tax on income since this is by nature neither regressive nor progressive. This is, of course, only in regards to those services that cannot be said to benefit one person over another... the only three things government is necessary for: defense, police, and the courts. If the government is to involve itself in anything further, the cost - as much as is possible - should be distributed according to how much someone benefits. However, it shouldn't be.

4. Wendy, you're clearly advocating communism. It's worked so well in the past, right? In any case, that isn't even the fundamental problem. People who cannot afford healthcare should not receive it, why you might ask? Because in order to pay for it, you need to rob someone else to pay for it. If everyone is fine and dandy about paying for other people's healthcare - let them do it, VOLUNTARILY. If someone can afford the best care, you have NO RIGHT to rob them of it - and you speak of giving people autonomy.= I trust my insurance company to give me a fair shake more than the state. They lose business when they fail to satisfy their customers, government does not: it is the only game in town. Public oversight? Ahaha! The most successful public oversight will instill an oppressive system that regulates your day to day life. Why shouldn't the public tell their minorities that they can't smoke or drink or eat fat/salt/potatoes? These are all public health risks! The solution to the problem of healthcare is to do nothing. Actually, to do less than nothing, to eliminate all state healthcare entirely. People unable to afford healthcare is unfortunate. The deprivation of rights, freedom, and property to do it is downright evil.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The political establishment are not just the politicians. It's primarily those who donate millions during elections and on important votes and then expect something in return. These include business organizations, unions, and other special interest groups, both right and left. Change won't take place until we have term limits where politicians can't vote in order to maintain their power. No real substantive change will occur until we remove their power incentive.<!-/Quote-!>

5. If we remove the power of the state to influence the economy, this problem goes away.

There must be complete separation of economy and state! Everything else is robbery at the point of a gun; no matter how "noble" the ruse. Compulsory altruism and mandatory collectivism are the evils of this age. There is little I would fight for, but this is one of those things. I do NOT exist to serve others just as they do not exist to serve me.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

What is personally concerning to me, is that The World's Poorest and Working Class people are being stripped of some of the only remaining entitlements even you capitalists know Humans should never be deprived of. Social Security, Pensions, HealthCare.<!-/Quote-!>

I am a laissez faire capitalist. All entitlements, even these, are wrong and should never have been given.

Wonk Wonk Wonk...

When an armed man approaches me and says, "Your money or your life," why should I be so quick to give my money?

When Dawn approaches and the horizon brightens, should I ask, "Where is the moon?"

That's my thinkings at the moment:

1.Monetarism manage to make science diverting from his real purpose (to make communities grow) aiming to duplicate himself senseless.
2.Democracy has to consider commonwealth and relations, not economic standards (excepting efficiency)
3.We can walk ahead only, evolution is something to be conquered, using instinctual and feelings in the real 'Human' way.
4.Economy is coherence. Not capital.
5.We must be aware that the relations we carry (economical, social, sentimental, etc) are the result of the process begun in the time of philosophical birth of communities (polis stay for town-state as oikon stay for community, from that oikonomeia), that is civil state. Personally I would never trade This History of relations with some net gross growing. But evidently a lot do. And modern politicians and electors accept too easily this trade.

Stating that the future is ahead is not so selfevident today.

Cold Rolling--what are you smoking dude. I thought i had my finger up my a..

Scarlet--infrastructure; to a degree you are right. Worldwide the IMF has lent great sums of money for building of infrastruture. Much of the money to build this infrastructure was contracted to American and European corps. When it came to pay the loans the countries couldn't pay. Thus they were sanctioned which created more hardship. However, as an investor I'm only willing to take a risk that I feel will pay off. The greater the risk, the more return i want. And I wouldn't invest in many parts of the world regardless of what they say on CNBC.

Purpose of business--look at the mission statements of large corporations. it will give you an idea of what they think is important. It goes without saying that if a company can't make a profit, it can't stay in business.
Notice that it is multifacited. And unless they're BS'ing us it's more than just maximizing profits.


Mission

•Caterpillar will be the leader in providing the best value in machines, engines and support services for customers dedicated to building the world's infrastructure and developing and transporting its resources. We provide the best value to customers.


•Caterpillar people will increase shareholder value by aggressively pursuing growth and profit opportunities that leverage our engineering, manufacturing, distribution, information management and financial services expertise. We grow profitably.


•Caterpillar will provide its worldwide workforce with an environment that stimulates diversity, innovation, teamwork, continuous learning and improvement and rewards individual performance. We develop and reward people. Here's Caterpillar mission statement.
•Caterpillar is dedicated to improving the quality of life while sustaining the quality of our earth. We encourage social responsibility.

Separation of gov't and economy--saying that, i guess you would agree to remove most of US military from around the world. Much of our military presence around the world is not due to a threat to our shores, but to our business interests. Why did we turn back Sadaam in Kuwait and not do anything in the Sudan or Rhowanda? (only two examples).

I find your statement, "I I do NOT exist to serve others just as they do not exist to serve me", very sad. What you describe is not freedom, but the worst of all bondage. And that statement probably makes you very mad, since you don't think you need sympathy or help.

A huge super energy efficient freezer, to replace all the freezers in people's homes?

Yeah I am looking into patents as we type in another tab.