View Full Version : Big Gulp, Meet Big Brother
That's the title of this opinion piece (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/01/opinion/morrissey-bloomberg-soda/index.html?hpt=hp_c1) from CNN about Mayor Bloomberg working to ban soft drinks in servings larger than 16 oz. in New York.
First NY under Bloomberg banned smoking, then trans fats, now soda. Personal choices are being dictated in the name of the greater good (holding down the cost of the safety nets). Does the end justify the means? Is it worth it? I vote no. What say you?
Well, I know what you mean. But one of the interesting things I once read about change of habit is that a change in behavior PRECEDES a change in attitude. I always assumed your attitude changes first, and then your behavior changes as a result.
The implications in this case? Well, if personal behavior is forced to change because of a change in legislation then it can help to change the overall "collective consciousness" which can help society as a whole. Case in point is the seat belt law. There were tons of people who cried out against it in the name of personal liberty, but now, people feel safer when they buckle up--and they ARE more safe. But that feeling of "oh, I have to buckle up because I want to be safe" evolved AFTER months of feeling "uh-oh, I don't want to get a ticket."
Another case is smoking in public places. It amazes me that just a few years ago all of us non-smokers just tolerated horrible smoke-filled restaurants and even airplanes. Now, people can sniff out one puff of a cigarette in a large room like a bloodhound after a fox. People are forced to go outside to smoke / Awareness rises / Attitudes change / Cancer rates are dropping.
I am a strong proponent of awareness and transparency, and if it takes a law to uncover the truth and give people incentives to change their attitudes and behaviors, well, I'm not completely opposed, frankly. I'd rather be a victim of legislation of a paltry law that doesn't REALLY impact my personal liberty than be a victim of hidden truths.
All this sugar ingestion impacts our pocketbooks with the cost of rising insurance and medical care for diabetes, etc. I think there are other ways to make people aware though; it seems like by now even the brain dead would know that excessive soda consumption is not a good thing...but they don't seem to. It doesn't make sense to me that we give huge subsidies to corn growers so they can make oodles off of the end product that sweetens soda and then we tell the consumer he can't have it. Seems like the laws or lack of incentive should be on the other end.
Government trying to make Americans smaller strikes me as a good argument for Americans trying to make government smaller.
Whatever happened to the idea of "My body, my choice"?
It doesn't make sense to me that we give huge subsidies to corn growers so they can make oodles off of the end product that sweetens soda and then we tell the consumer he can't have it. Seems like the laws or lack of incentive should be on the other end.
Good point!
Whatever happened to the idea of "My body, my choice"?
That's fine, but can I choose not to pay for the healthcare costs of people who develop chronic disease as a result of their choices? As a taxpayer funding Medicare/Medicaid, not really.
Government trying to make Americans smaller strikes me as a good argument for Americans trying to make government smaller.
Well said.
Government trying to make Americans smaller strikes me as a good argument for Americans trying to make government smaller.
OMG, funny!
You need to write for National Review's "Week in Review" column."
That's fine, but can I choose not to pay for the healthcare costs of people who develop chronic disease as a result of their choices? As a taxpayer funding Medicare/Medicaid, not really.
I guess that begs the question. How far do you want to take that?
I guess that begs the question. How far do you want to take that?
I honestly don't know, Alan. But pretty soon we're going to have to figure it out--it's a pretty tangled web we've woven and there's no simple right answer. If Bloomberg taxed the Big Gulps I'd be fine with that, too.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ~ C.S. Lewis
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ~ C.S. Lewis
We can rest easy, then, because we are living under the tyranny of robber barons in the form of corporate Goliaths with enough cunning, money, and power to stack the deck in their favor and make it look like we are choosing freely.
ApatheticNoMore
6-1-12, 3:05pm
Bloomberg, the wall street tycoon, banning smoking, transfat, sodas, and occupy wall street.
I'm not terribly sympathetic to such things. On the one hand I hate smoking with a passion as it has killed too many people I know, too soon, and yet the morons never do learn, they keep puffing away, not the sharpest tools in the shed. Smoking really is MUCH WORSE than all the junk food consumption, it's just ugly in it's toll. However, transfats serve no useful function (they don't EVEN TASTE GOOD compared to say butter!). And I admit I get annoyed by sometimes not being able to find healthy food in this country!!! I mean ok sure if you go to the farmers market or Whole Foods, or if you are careful the Trader Joe's, even the ordinary supermarket and shop the produce and so on, you'll be ok. But I happen to work in some place with only chain restaurants and convenience stores around, so .... no healthy food in sight, come prepared or else ...
On the other hand I don't even believe that government is even SINCERE in wanting our health to improve. We can't even seem to get GMOs labeled (and at the federal level - more and more GMOs get approved - and this is scary on so many levels - for whole ecosystems), yet big gulps may be banned. Nothing is done to aid people who really really want to eat healthy (want to know if their food contains GMOs say), but some wayward person sipping a soda with no illusions that soda is health food, must be punished for his crime! Tabacco is subsidized, corn is subsidized. Mandating restaurants not serve transfats isn't necessarily going to make them any more healthy. Why? Because healthy food COSTS MONEY. You can replace transfats with high omega 6 oils (even GMO ones), but that's almost certainly not improving anyone's health! Those are very bad for people. And that is the route most restaurants will take, because butter costs money, because really good olive oil (my favorite fat) costs even more money, etc.. So noone is necessarily any healthier at all from this.
And yea there is an irony in imaging Bloomberg banning your soda between cracking occupy wall street heads, tsk, tsk, don't sip a soda, but don't dare protest the system behind it all (from Wall Street to Monsanto) - don't draw any connections. Nope, I can't say legistlation targetting individual lifestyle choices is particularly sympathetic, since I always assume people do what they think they must, what they regard as their best interest at the time (even if that's sipping another soda for the caffination - since it provides a very temporary illusionary energy), and especially in light of the government itself being corrupt to the core.
(though I do wish the stupid smokers would just quit! :)).
ApatheticNoMore
6-1-12, 3:15pm
We can rest easy, then, because we are living under the tyranny of robber barons in the form of corporate Goliaths with enough cunning, money, and power to stack the deck in their favor and make it look like we are choosing freely.
Yea but if anyone Bloomberg IS that corporate Goliath, a man of Wall Street. He's not the revolutionary you are looking for :) That said even I would give him credit if he did good, but like I said much of this stuff is very dubious.
OMG, funny!
You need to write for National Review's "Week in Review" column."
I also like the "Continuing Crisis' column in the American Spectator.
Yea but if anyone Bloomberg IS that corporate Goliath, a man of Wall Street. He's not the revolutionary you are looking for :) That said even I would give him credit if he did good, but like I said much of this stuff is very dubious.
Agreed. It is all very dubious. I don't really like taking a "moral busybody" stance, but having been in marketing for twenty years, well, I've been behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain and it's jaded me, that's all. If I had worked in the White House for twenty years, I'm sure that would have jaded me, too.
I honestly don't know, Alan. But pretty soon we're going to have to figure it out--it's a pretty tangled web we've woven and there's no simple right answer. If Bloomberg taxed the Big Gulps I'd be fine with that, too.
Agreed, Catherine, if the proceeds went to defray the eventual impact of those Big Gulps on my pocketbook. I also don't mind tobacco taxes for the same reason. Because, as my father used to say, stupid oughtta hurt - and there ought to be some reasonable way to allow the Gulpers to do their thing without a trickle down cost to me. I personally don't give a tinker's damn if someone wants to kill themselves that way, but don't make me pay for it in the end. That belief also colors my opinion of what a national health care policy ought to look like, but I fear mine would never see the light of day.
ApatheticNoMore
6-1-12, 5:24pm
Of all the things I pay for that I don't want via government .... Of all the externalities that aren't taxed that cost in terms of things worth FAR more than money... Why this?
That belief also colors my opinion of what a national health care policy ought to look like, but I fear mine would never see the light of day.
I think for that we might be glad, even corrupt oligiopoly profit maximizing insurance companies, and doctors whose perks are pharmaceutical company funded, might still beat mandatory yoga.
When you look at countries that actually do eat somewhat healthier, is it all about the ruthless punishment of food sins? Or is it more about more regulations on what gets into the food in the first place (pink slime anyone?), less disasterous food subsidies, and a way more healthy food culture?
Then again my fundemental flaw may be I think most people are basically good (people not corporations or governments or any of those large inhuman entities) and if they eat big gulps it's because they are ignorant or because they are hurting.
The odd thing is Catherine actually makes a much stronger case for banning or taxing advertising than banning or taxing big gulps (it's effects are far more wide-ranging and far worse in general, talk about something with insiduous effects, way worse than the corn syrup). It would never actually fly though, of course.
My own experiences simply will not allow me to believe that the government deciding what is best for me rather than me exercising personal choice will ultimately create a society in which I would like to live. It is certainly true that there are no easy answers, but IMO this is an easy answer to run away from. I'm really just perplexed that more people are not expressing some level of outrage while they still can. I guess I'm just a bad lemming that will stock up on 64 oz. cups (there's a spot for them in the bunker between the books and the 100w bulbs) while I still can. Our favorite old English dude would probably have something relevant to say about this.
ApatheticNoMore
6-1-12, 6:46pm
I'm really just perplexed that more people are not expressing some level of outrage while they still can.
Possibly an issue of bigger fish to fry (in transfat)? New york, new york it's a wonderful town .. the Bronx is up but the Battery's down ... The people ride in a hole in the ground .... Where were we? Ah yes, New York:
New York state declares war on anonymous internet postings:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/ny-bill-takes-aim-at-nasty-online-commenters.html
That internet law is completely hilarous, if it wasn't kinda scary.
New York seems to be taking x-ray pictures of people (pornoscans?) in drive by vans:
""U.S. law enforcement agencies are exposing people to radiation in more settings and in increasing doses to screen for explosives, weapons and drugs. In addition to the controversial airport body scanners [2], which are now deployed for routine screening, various X-ray devices have proliferated at the border, in prisons and on the streets of New York."
http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning-officials-expand-use-and-dose-of-radiation-for-security-s
Now ok that last one is less well documented than I would like (at least exactly WHERE it is happening, are we absolutely sure it is happening in New York?) and I like to source my information well. But the technology DOES seem to have been purchased:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0929/Feds-radiating-Americans-Mobile-X-ray-vans-hit-US-streets
Wait a second is this exposing people to radiation without their knowledge GOOD for people's HEALTH? Isn't the government supposed to care so much about our health? Oh well if people get cancer from the radiation, we can always blame their lifestyle choices right? It was probably the big gulps ...
Meanwhile the big gulp law is a small fish as you can always buy multiple small cups of soda to get the equivalent of a big gulp right? You can of course also stock up on soda from the store (even in new york I'd imagine). The law may be silly but is also easily circumvented in other words.
Outrage? Every day in the news there are hundreds of stories that (should) generate more outrage than Bloomberg's latest anti-obesity posturing. We live in the land of Citizens United, NDAA, Super/Spooky PACs, enormous subsidies to petroleum companies and tax writeoffs for businesses moving jobs offshore.....the planet is going to roast, and one in seven of us here are already starving. We live in an asylum; I don't have the brainspace to worry too much about the slippery constitutional slope of banning gigantic sugary drinks. Of course it's a ridiculous thing to focus on. But to expect that New Yorkers should storm city hall with torches and pitchforks might be expecting a lot. Most of them are probably just thinking, "Well, I've been meaning to cut back on that sh*t anyway." If they care at all.
ApatheticNoMore
6-1-12, 8:18pm
Yea that was my point, vastly more big brotherish stuff that actually seems to be happening in the vicinity of New York (that I know about, and I live in the other side of the country).
Yea that was my point, vastly more big brotherish stuff that actually seems to be happening in the vicinity of New York (that I know about, and I live in the other side of the country).
It's interesting how many people were cheering when Bloomberg and company descended on OWS, but get upset when they see he's treating everyone that way.
i don't normally go in for slippery slope type arguments but this really is a slippery slope. What a dumb idea. Ban big sodas? Really? And after that what? Big hamburgers? Doughnuts? Come on. You can't fix stupid! If people want to drink gallons of sugar water, let them. Trying to portion out all the things WE won't pay for as tax payers is going to pretty much eliminate everything, won't it? You get a heart attack? Well, i won't pay for smoking and sugary fats. Cancer? Smoking and fats, again. Break your leg? I don't want to pay for your skiing accident. Or your motorcycle accident. Or your incredible bad luck in your choice of parents in the gene game. Really, we can't pick and choose who gets medical coverage on our disdain of their lifestyle. No, maybe we wouldn't do those things, but then when we break our leg or have a heart attack, thank goodness others can't choose to deny US because THEY don't approve of our lifestyle!
The best we can do is keep slogging away at the education as to what is a good and healthy lifestyle. It does make a difference, and some info is getting in there. I'm sure the ad folks here will tell you it does take hearing a message a certain number of times before it gets in.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ~ C.S. Lewis
A good quote to remember when the tyranny of the anti-choice folks try to push their own 'conscience' on the rest of society. Thank you Alan.
That's fine, but can I choose not to pay for the healthcare costs of people who develop chronic disease as a result of their choices? As a taxpayer funding Medicare/Medicaid, not really.
I guess you could begin with restricting those on public assistance from buying soda and other junk food with food stamps and not covering them for diabetes and other obesity-related conditions (this is to differentiate them from those with Type 1 diabetes).
I guess you could begin with restricting those on public assistance from buying soda and other junk food with food stamps and not covering them for diabetes and other obesity-related conditions (this is to differentiate them from those with Type 1 diabetes).
That just seem like common sense to me.
A good quote to remember when the tyranny of the anti-choice folks try to push their own 'conscience' on the rest of society. Thank you Alan.
In that case it's not your "choice" that anyone is concerned about is it? Speaking for the least among us isn't tyranny.
Back to the Big Gulp....as with most things, there is a way around it. If the 'Big' Gulp is banned then buy several 'Little' Gulps, drink individually or pour into a large cup.
This is a hilarious thread to read.
The Big Gulp issue could apply to so many situations in our world. Too much of floury foods? Too little exercise? Too much alcohol?
Is a gas guzzler a Big Gulp as well? Is frequent flying a Big Gulp impacting our supply of fossil fuel big time? Having a car at all requiring huge infrastructure vs transit?
Where does one draw the line on freedom of choice and its impact on all of society and its costs? That is the question not focusing on the few (usually poorer financially and less educated) segments of our world who may be drinking too much soda and becoming obese.
And while we're at it, lets ban everything slightly dangerous too. Like skiing. People break their legs skiing from time to time. Why should I, through my health insurance, have to pay for that. And the list could go on to infinity.
For me, when I think of the word freedom I don't put an asterisk next to the word linking to fine print that says "as long as the government deems what you want to do to be adequately safe, healthy, and socially acceptable."
Back to the Big Gulp....as with most things, there is a way around it. If the 'Big' Gulp is banned then buy several 'Little' Gulps, drink individually or pour into a large cup.
Bloomberg said pretty much the same thing himself. It's not a ban on drinking soda, just how it is served.
I remember in my younger days when we weren't allowed buy rounds of pitchers (beer) and had to order a pitcher at a time.
I think it's a great idea to ban the large soft drinks. It sends a good message to warn about the harmful effects of gross sugar consumption without really restricting people's rights. In some form or another I/we are footing part of the health care costs for people who have a gross disregard for their health. Obesity and it's related health risks is probably one of top health issues of our times.
I think it's a great idea to ban the large soft drinks.
It simply appalling people would use a gun to keep me from buying a Big Gulp.
It simply appalling people would use a gun to keep me from buying a Big Gulp.
Actually it's using a gun to keep someone from selling you a Big Gulp. I don't think the ban is on you - it's on the sellers. Businesses are banned from selling all sorts of stuff or have requirements for how they package/sell their stuff.
Added: if you don't do all the legal stuff to become a business, permits, licenses, etc, you're banned from selling a much larger range of stuff. I'm wondering how many "town shuts down kids lemonade stand" stories we'll see this year?
ApatheticNoMore
6-2-12, 12:04pm
I think we should ban stress, stress is causing too many people to get sick. Why stress related diseases might kill more people than obesity.
Ok no, I don't actually think we should ban stress :~). Though it is true you would get a lot further on creating a better world by looking at why people go around as stressed out crazies than by banning big gulps. I'm just saying. But somehow I am coming to suspect that punitiveness is somehow more American .... though granted big gulp banning is a pretty mild punishment (just buy several small drinks!). It's so mild that Bloomberg doesn't even seem to be encountering that much pushback for this from the regulated industries (movie theaters and what have you).
Is a gas guzzler a Big Gulp as well? Is frequent flying a Big Gulp impacting our supply of fossil fuel big time?
You can say everything is an externality somehow I guess, but for me the environmental stuff is pretty clear. Outright destroying the commons should bear a price (when it's not outlawed outright). As noone can fathom a world with all fossil fuels outlawed, carbon should be taxed (make it revenue neutral, make into a citizen dividend than is then refunded to people), your contribution to all the harm burning carbon fuels causes, should bear a cost (and the purpose of that IS to reduce the use of it).
Big gulps are kind of meh. It seems to me that there are many countries with complete SOCIALIZED MEDICINE (not just I somehow bear the cost via old folks socialized medicine (medicare) or insurance premiums), that don't go in for the lifestyle policing. However, they have healthier lifestyles? Generally. That's called the effect of broad social policies (and sometimes culture too), not the effects of punishing individual food sins.
ApatheticNoMore
6-2-12, 12:18pm
I'm wondering how many "town shuts down kids lemonade stand" stories we'll see this year?
This is the type of stuff I'll actively personally fight, need to encourage people to have more income streams that aren't dependent on an increasingly fragile system, open up opportunities for small scale entrepreneurship etc..
Kids under 18 can't legally buy tobacco or alcohol or ammunition or porn because we want them to reach a level of maturity prior to having access to things that could cause harm if not used in moderation. At age 18 years and 1 day I was an abuser of the first three and probably only took a pass on the 4th because it wasn't readily available to me. So mature! Like most of my peers I got over it after a while, but it had nothing to do with the restriction or lack thereof. Even so, if we're going to take the approach of protecting our young until they are theoretically able to do it for themselves maybe we should ban soda sales to minors so they can develop healthier habits during their formative years. That and riding in cars (more kids killed in car wrecks than Mountain Dew ever dreamed of knocking off).
Part of my objection to this approach to obesity is that it assumes weight management is all about food choices. If the government really cares about a healthier population, how about spending on parks, or sports facillities, or public transit (which encourages walking), or walkable neighborhoods? That's where the power of government could really accomplish something private citizens can't. (I can choose my own menu items, thank you.) I live in one of those cities which is always on the "most obese" lists. Do we have a local food culture that features unhealthy foods? Sure. But we also have weather that keeps people indoors at least five months a year, and terrible transit, and infrastructure that makes it very difficult to walk anywhere, and way too few options for exercise, especially for our poorer residents.
Outrage? Every day in the news there are hundreds of stories that (should) generate more outrage than Bloomberg's latest anti-obesity posturing. We live in the land of Citizens United, NDAA, Super/Spooky PACs, enormous subsidies to petroleum companies and tax writeoffs for businesses moving jobs offshore.....the planet is going to roast, and one in seven of us here are already starving. We live in an asylum; I don't have the brainspace to worry too much about the slippery constitutional slope of banning gigantic sugary drinks. Of course it's a ridiculous thing to focus on. But to expect that New Yorkers should storm city hall with torches and pitchforks might be expecting a lot. Most of them are probably just thinking, "Well, I've been meaning to cut back on that sh*t anyway." If they care at all.
+1000
Come back to me when you have a real idea to do something really significant.
Part of my objection to this approach to obesity is that it assumes weight management is all about food choices. If the government really cares about a healthier population, how about spending on parks, or sports facillities, or public transit (which encourages walking), or walkable neighborhoods? That's where the power of government could really accomplish something private citizens can't. (I can choose my own menu items, thank you.) I live in one of those cities which is always on the "most obese" lists. Do we have a local food culture that features unhealthy foods? Sure. But we also have weather that keeps people indoors at least five months a year, and terrible transit, and infrastructure that makes it very difficult to walk anywhere, and way too few options for exercise, especially for our poorer residents.
Spot on AmeliaJane. I'd go farther than that. Why don't we pay people to workout/lose weight? $XX for every pound someone loses and keeps off for 6 months. $XX at they end of every month they maintain a healthy weight. $XX for every hour they spend in the gym. $XX every time you bike to work. Etc. Yea, yea it sounds kind of silly at first, but if you look at what obesity supposedly costs there is plenty of money available to divert to fund it. Let the government figure out that the result would be higher productivity and longevity on the earning (tax paying) side of retirement and they will figure out a way to get it done. Plus there wouldn't be any griping about infringing on individual choices since it could be voluntary. Incentives sometimes work, prohibition doesn't.
Seems like if we continue to have an ever enlarging number of low-socio-economic/poorly educated people, the Big Gulp is going to be wanted/craved. Maybe we're focusing on the wrong aspect of who actually buys these sugary drinks all the time..........
But that's what America seems to be about these days. Its all so complex and convoluted.
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-12, 12:01pm
I don't want to subsidize gym visits or losing weight, I don't even particularly want to ban big gulps. I would like very much if the government actually set some limits on the endless adulteration of the food supply (no chocolate cake containing sugar is not an adulteration, it's a recipe, though not particularly healthy of course. Adulterations are the sneaky stuff: pink slime sneaking into meat, GMO's sneaking into the food supply, BST fed to cows, etc. etc.). Stuff is allowed to be done to food here than is allowed in almost no other countries.
Outrage?
Well, yes! I am personally outraged that politicians at any level would even consider wasting time trying to make personal choices for me. If Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, either of my Senators, our County Judge or the head of my HOA can't find anything more important than that to do I will happily kick their sorry ass right out the door. Not only is it none of their business whatsoever if I want to get fat drinking gallons of Pepsi every day, there are far bigger issues facing this country than my potential diabetes (and you named off but a few good ones puglogic).
Calm down Gregg, and finish your Big Gulp. :laff:
(just kidding......)
winterberry
6-5-12, 11:45pm
I would like to have the option of buying a "small gulp" at the minimart on my way home from work. Often when I'm looking for something to drink the only options are ridiculously large bottles of whatever. So it's fine with me if the government wants to intervene on my behalf by not allowing big business to exploit my thirst by forcing me to buy more than I need or want.
So, what is your opinion of the law requiring calorie counts on menu items? I'm in California on business and they have it, and I think NY has it, too.
I love it. I've always wondered why I didn't lose weight on the road despite being MORE active and eating LESS when on the road. So I was doing research in CA a few months back and my colleague and I stopped in a restaurant for lunch. I wanted a salad (healthy, right?) and all of them on the menu were over 1000 calories!!!! I wound up picking a random thing off the "healthy" section... for 550 calories.
That's the kind of hidden truth I referred to earlier... At least if we KNOW what the calorie count is, we can make informed choice. But without this information, we are just victims of ignorance.
ApatheticNoMore
6-6-12, 1:24am
I make use of those calorie counts (to order lower calorie items) and really they are quite useful. Not because I count daily calories - I don't, and I don't particularly want to become weight obsessed etc., but I mean yea 1000 calories or more for a meal, that's JUST *OBVIOUSLY* too many calories to consume in a single meal for most females! And when I consume those big meals I feel uncomfortably stuffed afterward! And that many calories is something you'd be unlikely to get from a homemade meal. Ideally of course I try to bring my lunch, it's far far better nutritionally, but I guess I'm slipping up about 1 day a week now and end up eating lunch out (well slipping up includes the days I end up eating the lunch I brought for breakfast and then go out for lunch :\ ).
The problem is, is that there are too many people who have no common sense, no control, no knowledge (or interest in) health issues, etc., etc. Should the government try to intervene to force people to be healthier, or just continue to have the masses pay ridiculous healthcare costs, because so many people are obese, diabetic, unhealthy?? Should there not have been a seatbelt law? Was this interfering too much?
So, what is your opinion of the law requiring calorie counts on menu items? ...
.... But without this information, we are just victims of ignorance.
It's bogus. More gooberment interference and dictatorship.
You can pile all of the lettuce greens that you want on a dish made with multiple cheeses, walnuts, croutons, cranberries & etc. and call it "salad" but guess what--it's still a 1,000 calorie salad. I don't need a goon from D.C. to tell me that.
Mainly, I can't imagine how small restaurants that produce each day dishes that are different come up with calorie counts. I hope there is some relaxing of the rules for independents who don't churn out the same drek each day. Kills creativity and ability to use what is fresh that day.
But I have to confess that I do use the nutrition information on the back of packaged foods and that is a Nanny state mandate, so sure, I've benefited from some of it. But enough already.
Calm down Gregg, and finish your Big Gulp. :laff:
(just kidding......)
Lol...I actually do go through a lot of big gulps in the summer. Every one filled with good old unsweetened Lipton iced tea.
I just knew you were a Big Gulper Gregg. ;)
Unsweetened iced tea is fine in Big Gulps! (But yuk without the sugar! haha)
Well, yes! I am personally outraged that politicians at any level would even consider wasting time trying to make personal choices for me. .
So..you are solidly pro-choice and pro-gay marriage! Good to know! :)
So..you are solidly pro-choice and pro-gay marriage! Good to know! :)
Absolutely yes I am, always have been. Abortion is between a woman and her God, not me (unless I am the father, of course). My brother is gay and has been in a committed relationship with his partner, who I absolutely adore, for 15 years. They love each other very much and I think it is ridiculous that anyone says they can not have the same benefit of a formalized union that my wife and I are afforded.
Peggy, there are quite a few of us out here that are social liberals, constitutional patriots and fiscal conservatives. I suspect that will be apparent, along with the priorities we independents wish our political leaders to hold, come November 6. Hint: I don't see the social issues winning the election for anyone.
I just knew you were a Big Gulper Gregg. ;)
Unsweetened iced tea is fine in Big Gulps! (But yuk without the sugar! haha)
My family in the south would probably disown me if they read that I drink UN-sweet tea. Shhh.....
I'm a half gulper - 1/2sweet and 1/2 unsweet.
Peggy, there are quite a few of us out here that are social liberals, constitutional patriots and fiscal conservatives.
Indeed. It is a shame both the Democrats and the Republicans have abandoned us.
I want the government out of my bedroom, out of my kitchen, out of my garden, and out of my wallet.
Thought that you might find this http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/05/f-rfa-macdonald-american-obesity.html article on Canada's CBC interesting on the social costs of the sugar fix being discussed. The sugar fix is contributing to obesity and diabetes for which everyone pays a high price not just the one drinking the sugar dose.
Just as the financial world seemingly believes that it should be able to privatize profits but socialize losses, so some believe that one should be able to privatize whatever one eats/drinks but expect to socialize the healthcare costs of doing so. No matter who or how healthcare is paid, there is a huge cost for obesity. Interesting way of thinking?
Quote:
Sometimes the cause is beyond the control of the individual, as with a thyroid condition.
But in the vast majority of cases, the cause is over-consumption of over-processed, high-sugar, ultimately toxic food.
According to the latest data from the federal Centers for Disease Control, 35.7 per cent of American adults — more than 78 million — are obese; about 41 million women and 37 million men. Among adolescent boys, 18.6 per cent are obese. The figure for young girls is 15 per cent.
About two-thirds of American adults are just plain overweight. (Obesity is defined as a body mass index, a mixture of height and weight, over 30. Anyone with a BMI over 25 is overweight.)
And yet efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, to fight childhood obesity by encouraging healthier eating have been widely ridiculed by conservatives here, many of whom are plenty fat themselves. Step right up, Rush Limbaugh.
Channelling millions of his listeners, Limbaugh blasted the president’s wife for suggesting Americans eat "cardboard and tofu … roots, and berries and tree bark," and howled with glee when she and her family were spotted dining on ribs in a restaurant.
"It doesn't look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice," he declared, insinuating that she could stand to lose a few pounds, too.
"I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit Issue."
Yes. Well. Michelle Obama is a swan, compared to Limbaugh and millions of other obese Americans.
That’s not the point, though. If obesity was just some jolly extra poundage, a harmless sign of prosperity, it wouldn’t be an issue.
But it's not.
High cost of obesity
Again, according to the Centres for Disease Control, obesity is directly related to heart disease, stroke, certain types of cancer, and, of course, Type 2 diabetes, which is becoming an epidemic here. Those conditions kill.
In 2008 (and things have worsened somewhat since then), medical costs related to obesity were about $147 billion. The medical costs to third-party payers (mostly health insurance companies or government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid) for people who are obese are $1,429 higher than for people of normal weight.
What Limbaugh and the get-your-government-hands-off-my-jelly-doughnuts crowd are really saying is that they not only have the right to get fat, but the cost of their over-indulgence should also be disproportionately borne by everybody else — hardly a conservative position.
....What Limbaugh and the get-your-government-hands-off-my-jelly-doughnuts crowd are really saying is that they not only have the right to get fat, but the cost of their over-indulgence should also be disproportionately borne by everybody else — hardly a conservative position.
Actually, I believe the conservative position is that government should get their hands off my jelly doughnuts, and my health care. Problem solved!
Actually, I believe the conservative position is that government should get their hands off my jelly doughnuts, and my health care. Problem solved!
Exactly. Personal responsibility, *and* individual liberty.
When the government steps in to take over responsibility, liberty suffers. When everyone else is paying for your health care, they get to tell you how many cheeseburgers you can eat per decade.
Exactly. Personal responsibility, *and* individual liberty.
When the government steps in to take over responsibility, liberty suffers. When everyone else is paying for your health care, they get to tell you how many cheeseburgers you can eat per decade.
The place to start then is eliminating Medicare - most of these "bad choices" health issues tend to manifest in later life when most people are on government funded healthcare.
ApatheticNoMore
6-6-12, 3:36pm
Just as the financial world seemingly believes that it should be able to privatize profits but socialize losses, so some believe that one should be able to privatize whatever one eats/drinks but expect to socialize the healthcare costs of doing so.
Well really what could be a more individual choice than what goes into your own personal mouth? The thoughts you think, whom you sleep with? Sugar is an addiction maybe but so be it. My actual position is just one with a long history and basically what liberals have always believed historically: government should regulate what industry is allowed to do with the food supply (which often happens without people's knowledge), but not what the individual puts in their mouth. Have standards for what is allowed in food, have transparency so people know what they are getting, regulate industry. In the real world though, I'm lukewarm on even this, when what I actually see often happening is corruption, is regulatory capture, is the regulations being used to put the good responsible small farmer out of business (think people like Joel Salitan) and benefit huge agrigarbage. But that is a *practicality* objection and not a philosophical one. It's not a position that government shouldn't be allowed to regulate what pesticides are used, or ban pink slime. It should. Will sensible regulation be acheived without money out of politics and an informed activist citizenry? No, maybe not.
As for what people put in their mouths: the government doesn't even have a good track record on accuracy on this. For how many years was margarine pushed as better than butter? This was completely allowed and in fact endorsed by government. For how many years was eating a dozen grains the base of the food pyramid? Stuff yourself silly with white bread tactically endorsed even if a few mumbles were made about whole grains.
And yet efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, to fight childhood obesity by encouraging healthier eating have been widely ridiculed by conservatives here, many of whom are plenty fat themselves. Step right up, Rush Limbaugh.
Encouraging healthier eating via the organic white house garden and stuff is great.
Channelling millions of his listeners, Limbaugh blasted the president’s wife for suggesting Americans eat "cardboard and tofu … roots, and berries and tree bark," and howled with glee when she and her family were spotted dining on ribs in a restaurant.
That's his belief system that healthy food automatically is bad tasting. It's a belief system, and of course it will keep people weighing more than they would otherwise. If in your mind the only choices are huge piles of restaurant garbage and tree bark and tofu then you will eat huge piles of restaurant garbage in UTTER IGNORANCE of what you are actually being fed! What if you could eat produce, and full fat animal products and olive oil on your salad and so on and it wouldn't actually kill you? What if you could eat real food? (not too much is definitely a good idea, mostly plants will be debated until the cows come home). The whole American food system is a BIG LIE, an advertising myth, a false choice if ever there were one, the idea that only fast food chemicals taste good is a LIE. Having an open mind to even question propaganda enough to save yourself from dying a bloated corpse in your bed would be too much to ask of Rush maybe though. :laff: Allow your mind to be poisoned and therefore poison your body ...
I read a quote recently I like: American's don't eat food, they eat carbs and chemicals. :laff: - carbo loaded chemicals - how fun! That's really really deeply true. I mean whatever plenty of Americans do eat food, of course, but a lot of products sold out there ARE little more than carbs and chemicals.
"It doesn't look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice," he declared, insinuating that she could stand to lose a few pounds, too.
I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit Issue."
That's to focus only on weight though, which maybe isn't as strongly linked to diseases as expected. No I'm not saying: hey everyone get huge! Just that the correlation with disease and being overweight may actually not be as strong as suspected, that it's linked to something like arthritus of the knees or something is just pretty obvious though.
Again, according to the Centres for Disease Control, obesity is directly related to heart disease, stroke, certain types of cancer, and, of course, Type 2 diabetes, which is becoming an epidemic here. Those conditions kill.
That seems to have some contesting though
What Limbaugh and the get-your-government-hands-off-my-jelly-doughnuts crowd are really saying is that they not only have the right to get fat, but the cost of their over-indulgence should also be disproportionately borne by everybody else — hardly a conservative position.
And blaming individuals exclusively without any regard to social context isn't a liberal position :). What social context: at least, an anything goes food system (so much alteration to the food supply), and EXTREMELY misguided subsidy policies (government actually contributing to the problem, maybe *THE* major contributor with it's subsidy policies really). Limbaughs position might actually be completely consistent, that government should have no involvement in medicine at all (except I would hope control of true epidemics!), most people don't agree with that position for things like the very poor, and emergency rooms at least though.
Gingerella72
6-6-12, 5:33pm
It's my understanding that the proposed ban is only for *serving* larger-than-16 oz sweetened drinks in restaurants, movie theaters and street carts. That is to say, items like fountain soda and bottled beverages, correct? But I see nothing that says it would stop an individual from walking into a grocery store and buying as many cans/bottles/containers of the stuff as they want. And, they're not banning anyone from purchasing smaller-than-16 oz-drinks, so it's not like they can't have it period. I'm failing to see why reducing the size served at restaurants, et al is a bad thing.
There was a time that a single serving size of soda was 6.5 oz. That was the original glass coke bottle size. Then in the 1950's they hit on the idea of offering multiple sized bottles in 10, 12 and 26 oz versions, along with offering it in cans. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. As the decades have passed we've been duped by advertising into believing we need more and more and bigger is better, and if you don't consume this quantity then you're not getting your money's worth, etc. And now we're complaining because we're being asked to go back to a more traditional size of soft drink? Again, how is this bad?
Exactly. Personal responsibility, *and* individual liberty.
When the government steps in to take over responsibility, liberty suffers. When everyone else is paying for your health care, they get to tell you how many cheeseburgers you can eat per decade.
The whole concept of personal responsibility seems to have gone out of fashion, doesn't it? I'm not convinced it is even possible to regain that with such emphasis placed on being cared for at every turn. It is extremely ironic that so many who decry the control they assume is held by people with extreme wealth would, in the blink of an eye, subordinate even the smallest aspect of their living to a powerful government. Follow the piper, he will lead you to the soma.
It is extremely ironic that so many who decry the control they assume is held by people with extreme wealth would, in the blink of an eye, subordinate even the smallest aspect of their living to a powerful government. Follow the piper, he will lead you to the soma.
Indeed. Happily stumbling in the dark of their mandated eco-correct lighting to flush their eco-correct toilet repeatedly hoping it will drain, then back to bed, taking care not to abrade their mattress tags.
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."
A few non-members thoughts on the subject:
"In a free society, government has the responsibility of protecting us from others, but not from ourselves." ~ Walter E. Williams
"If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all." – Jacob Hornberger (1995)
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. – Robert A. Heinlein
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson
It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law … that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts. – H. L. Mencken
The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others – with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means. – Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human Progress
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). ~ Ayn Rand
The American heritage was one of individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom from government … Unfortunately … that heritage has been lost. Americans no longer have the freedom to direct their own lives … Today, it is the government that is free – free to do whatever it wants. There is no subject, no issue, no matter … that is not subject to legislation. – Harry Browne
Another favorite:
The protection guaranteed by the amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S., 27 U.S. 438 (1928)
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things."
Do you suppose the corporations, who are in existence ONLY to make money, are concerned about man's spiritual nature? Do you really think that Philip Morris and PepsiCo feel that material things are not important? Do they really care if they coerce children to consume vast quantities of junk, because, hey, those kids don't HAVE to buy it and what about their parents?--even if they've exerted their power to seduce consumers through relentless marketing. So, if they can spend billions of dollars to persuade people they need things that are going to do them harm and hide the truth about that harm, are they are being true to the Founding Father's principles to protect Americans?
I am not about to be naive enough to trust corporations' ability to protect the public welfare because their raison d'ętre is to make money. It's like having a pit bull in your house and not leashing it, and when it attacks your child you say, hey, the child shouldn't have been standing there.
Well, it seems that the CBC journalist's opinion is not the generally accepted from all the views posted so far. Those darn Canadians, eh?:devil:
Actually, I believe the conservative position is that government should get their hands off my jelly doughnuts, and my health care. Problem solved!
And furthermore, maybe if the gov't didn't subsidize the corn that makes the HFCS to begin with then the additional cost might nudge people in a better direction in terms of what they eat/drink. I suspect most conservatives would also get behind that idea.
It's my understanding that the proposed ban is only for *serving* larger-than-16 oz sweetened drinks in restaurants, movie theaters and street carts. That is to say, items like fountain soda and bottled beverages, correct? But I see nothing that says it would stop an individual from walking into a grocery store and buying as many cans/bottles/containers of the stuff as they want. And, they're not banning anyone from purchasing smaller-than-16 oz-drinks, so it's not like they can't have it period. I'm failing to see why reducing the size served at restaurants, et al is a bad thing.
There was a time that a single serving size of soda was 6.5 oz. That was the original glass coke bottle size. Then in the 1950's they hit on the idea of offering multiple sized bottles in 10, 12 and 26 oz versions, along with offering it in cans. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. As the decades have passed we've been duped by advertising into believing we need more and more and bigger is better, and if you don't consume this quantity then you're not getting your money's worth, etc. And now we're complaining because we're being asked to go back to a more traditional size of soft drink? Again, how is this bad?
You have just given the classic liberal view of things. Simply put, the ends justify the means. So if it would be a good thing for society if everyone drank little sodas then it's ok to make a law outlawing big sodas. And yes, personally I agree with you that it would be a good thing if everyone drank smaller sodas. I personally only drink soda rarely and then sparingly. But as long as drinking soda is legal I'll support the right of people to sell sodas in whatever size they feel they can do most profitably.
By the same token would you also say that a law making it illegal to drive a vehicle that gets only 12 mpg, unless driving it was necessary for some reason, would also be ok. Personally I wouldn't. If someone is willing to pay for the gas to drive that car I don't think it's my, or government's, place to stop them. I'm mostly ok with things like the CAFE standards that help steer car manufacturers into producing more efficient cars. But if someone wants to buy an old gas guzzler or a modern one that has CAFE penalties built into its price then I think they should be able to. After all, what's next. Telling people how many therms of natural gas they can use each winter to heat their homes? You like living in the UP of Michigan? Sorry. Unless you have a super efficient or super small house you'll be cold next winter. I guess you need to move somewhere more temperate. After all, it's for the good of society for you to not use so much natural gas.
The other end of the "government control" spectrum is anarchy (no government controls) - is that where we should be going? Or do the "government control is bad" folks actually think some government controls are good?
ApatheticNoMore
6-6-12, 10:53pm
You have just given the classic liberal view of things. Simply put, the ends justify the means. So if it would be a good thing for society if everyone drank little sodas then it's ok to make a law outlawing big sodas.
I'm not sure that is traditionally a liberal position, I mean I really don't want to debate terms and their meanings (as they are mostly meaningless), but what I'm trying to say is: I don't think that has historically been the position of the moderate left within the United States to be concerned that much about individual behavior that mostly harms the individual themself (as opposed to corporate behavior and broad social policy - systematic things). So to be concerned about the conditions of slaughterhouses or something (or at least PRETENDING to be - activists are sometimes sincere, politicians aren't always), well yea .... that has presidence. But whether you smoke a joint or drink a coke less so ...
And yes, personally I agree with you that it would be a good thing if everyone drank smaller sodas. I personally only drink soda rarely and then sparingly.
It could have easily have been a decade since I've had a soda, that's how little it really affects me.
No, I didn't try to indicate that liberal thinking (or more accurately liberal law making) has anything to do with the individual, but rather that liberal law making tends to ignore the bigger law of the constitution in order to try and 'do good'. That's what I meant by the ends justify the means. An example from modern history being the mandate in obamacare that one buy insurance from a private corporation. Clearly, at least in my opinion, something way beyond the scope of the powers the constitution gave congress.
The other end of the "government control" spectrum is anarchy (no government controls) - is that where we should be going? Or do the "government control is bad" folks actually think some government controls are good?
Sure, some government controls in the society in which we live are necessary and expected. Fewer, however, certainly not more.
Sure, some government controls in the society in which we live are necessary and expected. Fewer, however, certainly not more.
To me the proper question isn't "government control or anarchy?"
It is "what is the proper domain of governmental control?"
Some folks wrote up a Constitution for our nation, delegating specific powers to the government, reserving the rest to the states and the citizens....
"Governmental control" of how I have sex with my partner, or what sort of toilet I decide to flush, or how large my hamburger is, seems outside the bounds of what government should be involved in.
Control of my raw sewage spilling into a river, that seems sensible.
To me the proper question isn't "government control or anarchy?"
It is "what is the proper domain of governmental control?"
Me, too. I think we would all agree some government controls are necessary (any true anarchists, here?) - we just disagree on which ones are. I would think even the more general argument for fewer has some controls in mind which are necessary and would not be the ones to toss to get to fewer.
I think there are dangers when the whole concept gets reduced to black and white, control or not. The arguments for or against something end up being based on things like "less government", "protecting the people", etc, instead of the merits or detrements of the actual issue at hand. It also (unintentionally or I often think intentionally) becomes a distraction from other, probably more important issues.
I don't know the true motives for ban - whether it's for health as Bloomberg is saying, or its maybe from businesses quietly lobbying to increase their own sales by removing a competitor's successful product. I think the city could work on issues more important than the sizes of plastic cups. But maybe that's the whole point.
Me, too. I think we would all agree some government controls are necessary (any true anarchists, here?) - we just disagree on which ones are. I would think even the more general argument for fewer has some controls in mind which are necessary and would not be the ones to toss to get to fewer.
Well, sure again. Let's say "effective and necessary" regulation rather than expressing it as numbers.
To me the proper question isn't "government control or anarchy?"
It is "what is the proper domain of governmental control?"
Some folks wrote up a Constitution for our nation, delegating specific powers to the government, reserving the rest to the states and the citizens....
"Governmental control" of how I have sex with my partner, or what sort of toilet I decide to flush, or how large my hamburger is, seems outside the bounds of what government should be involved in.
Control of my raw sewage spilling into a river, that seems sensible.
I actually agree with this, mostly. I do believe some powers that are in the states domain should be federal simply because this is such a huge, populated complicated country, nothing like the founding fathers knew, or probably could even imagine. Education, for instance, should be mandated at the federal level. If we left it up to the states only, well, then the education of our nation would be subject to local school boards who just might decide that science isn't so important, or who really needs math beyond adding and subtracting, or no one really needs to learn how to work computers. Now I'm all for local experiments or implementation of programs and charters, and fast tracking proven successful programs locally and hopefully nationally, but the standards should be uniform throughout the country. We need a well educated populace to move forward in this modern world, and really, better educated people in W. Virginia will benefit me in the long term.
And with health care. Yes, I know the argument against Obamacare, and I've read all the quotes from the founding fathers (and Ayn Rand) that I care to, but the REALITY remains. Until we actually let people DIE in the hospital parking lot because they don't have coverage, I say everyone should pay because EVERYONE will need care, at some point. EVERYONE. I'm actually a practical person. I am covered, and I wish everyone else was responsible enough, or could afford, to be covered. But they are not. That is reality. Not that everyone should /do take care of their own, or that the good neighbors will pitch in and pay for your heart surgery, or you will never need health care.
But everyone is not covered, it's expensive (even just a broken arm), and everyone WILL need it. Period. And I don't want to pay for the slackers who want to exercise their personal freedom by not having insurance. (but who expect to be treated when they show up in the emergency room, and they DO expect to be treated.) Didn't this used to be the republican stance? Personal responsibility?
So, again, until/unless I hear of people dying in the parking lot because they were refused treatment, I expect everyone to pay.
But, toilets and burgers and sodas, those are over the top ridiculous.
ApatheticNoMore
6-7-12, 11:50am
Me, too. I think we would all agree some government controls are necessary (any true anarchists, here?)
Anarchists are interesting, real anarchy is on the left and I don't mind radical voluntary socialism, anti-hiearchy, egalitarianism etc. Perfectly ok with working toward that direction. But if you're looking for a model without the state tommorow - they definitely don't have it, you may look in vain forever. I have not seen it yet, though I have heard proposals for private police forces etc.. Now there are also those, not always true left anarchists, who will argue the state causes more harm than good. Even excluding all the cases of states butchering their own citizens, but counting things like Hiroshima, my goodness counting what this country has done to the middle east(!), it's very persuasive. Still if you have no state how do you address something like climate change? How do you address environmental crisis? Noone knows. With a government that believes none of those issues are real (look if anyone wanted to make a Republican party that wasn't this way, it might be one worth voting for, but we simply don't have that now) how do you address that type of crisis? Who knows. With a so called liberal administration that gives lipservice but seems to sell out those issues in practice (in climate talks etc.) how do you address that type of crisis? Noone knows that either :(. Join Bill McKibben's movement is the best I have ....
I actually agree with this, mostly. I do believe some powers that are in the states domain should be federal simply because this is such a huge, populated complicated country, nothing like the founding fathers knew, or probably could even imagine. Education, for instance, should be mandated at the federal level. If we left it up to the states only, well, then the education of our nation would be subject to local school boards who just might decide that science isn't so important, or who really needs math beyond adding and subtracting, or no one really needs to learn how to work computers.
It's not the first thing that I'd say rock bottom needs to be federalized. What is? Environmental regulations, because the climate isn't containable to state boundaries, because destroying the oceans isn't containable to state boundaries, because genetically modified organisms are not containable to state boundaries, because even pollution isn't containable to state boundaries and L.A. smog winds up in Colorado etc.. That's minimum standards, I am very happy for states to exceed minimum standards, like California does, proud of California this way (even if in general it's not a well-run state, still proud of this).
Now I'm all for local experiments or implementation of programs and charters, and fast tracking proven successful programs locally and hopefully nationally, but the standards should be uniform throughout the country. We need a well educated populace to move forward in this modern world, and really, better educated people in W. Virginia will benefit me in the long term.
I want educated people. I think school boards that want to eliminate the teaching of evolution are harmful to an extreme degree. Ban banning evolution and that's not a bad idea :) I mean really are there words strong enough for those fools! I don't however particularly trust the federal government being in charge of education in general. And by the way if you talk policies like No Child's Left-Behind, good teachers, the BEST teachers, the one's who you know by talking to them really taught kids to think, quit the profession over that law!!! So hey we'll have more automatons graduating, I can't wait. And the federal government in general has proven itself corrupt, at times a wholy owned subsidiary of corporate power. I know it shouldn't be that way, this *should* be fought, but that is a concession to what reality is now too. I don't want the corporatist totalitarian murder state (what is the war-making body of THIS federal government is) in charge of education. They have no real interest in people who can think, of people who can question their agenda right down to the core. They have an interest only in workers who can earn enough to be milked for labor (for their corporate paymasters) and taxes (for the government apparatus itself). WI was interesting, it was people seeming to willingly vote to destroy their own schools, I mean really, you really don't want to pay teachers well? But time foretells the future with accuracy, certainly not I, I just take my best guess.
The problem with all existing health care reforms is they are trying to reform a corrupt system (and lets face it insurance oligopolies are a corrupt system - near completley so). I don't think the outcomes of trying to do that will be good. Worse than doing nothing? Quite possibly. I can't say. Remember doing nothing is just another variant of that corrupt system (insurance oligopolies).
The problem with all existing health care reforms is they are trying to reform a corrupt system.
Absolutely.
I vote for razing the whole thing and starting over with something that actually makes sense.
Absolutely.
I vote for razing the whole thing and starting over with something that actually makes sense.
I'm all for that. Or anything that seems reasonable and works! But we can't ignore the here and now for some 'future' system. We have to work with what we have, right now, but also plan for the future. The problem being, people will die today. Hearts will malfunction, bones will break, cars will crash, TODAY! Is President Obama's plan perfect? Far from it, but it's the only thing out there. I don't like it because I think it's all that and a bag of chips, I like it because he is the only one actually TRYING to do something. All the republicans want to do is talk talk talk, and promise and hedge and wiggle away. Meanwhile, those bones are breaking and cars crashing today, right now. Probably hundreds in the time I took to write this.
But, Catherine, what do you propose? What sort of system do you want to see? I'm always interested in ideas to fix the system.
I'm always delighted to find myself agreeing with iris Lily and bae. The government, with its idiotic Food Pyramid, has proven to my satisfaction that it has no business telling anyone what to eat (see the movie and blog Fat Head for an eye-opening Libertarian take on the subject). Iris Lily's "fewer and more effective" is exactly what I want--not more and stupider.
As far as Roger and CathyA, I couldn't disagree more. The problem with health care isn't poor people or stupid people or everybody's favorite target, people shaped like me, the problem is layers and layers of greed that have been built into the system by insurers, Pharma, and related grifters since the sixties when non-profit medicine fell out of favor. Most of us will get old and sick at some point; some of us are young and sick now. Some of us make a virtual hobby out of obsessing over our delicate constitutions. We can point fingers all we want: people who have children, people who can't handle stress, people who have allergies, people who play sports, people who visit doctors on a regular basis...blah blah blah. Or we can, as someone suggested, tear it down and start over. I'd start with getting profit the hell out of the picture.
But, Catherine, what do you propose? What sort of system do you want to see? I'm always interested in ideas to fix the system.
Shoot, I don't know for sure. It's so tangled. I do agree with you that at least Obama is taking a stab at something. It's not perfect, but we have to start somewhere.
I'm thinking the system has to start from the ground up because:
We didn't even HAVE insurance before the end of the 19th century, and it really took off when it was a good perk to provide employees during the industrial era. But there is no good reason to make private employer-based insurance the "norm" now. Under 50% have employer-provided insurance today. So what do we do with the other 50%?
Medical technology has grown incredibly, and it SHOULD NOT BE another gap between the rich and the poor. We're not back in the old days where the most sophisticated medical procedure was an appendectomy. We have the power to put the brakes on a lot of cancers and debilitating disease and if it's good enough for some, it should be good for all.
There are too many chefs in the kitchen. When no one person/body has direct accountability or responsibility for costs, they're just going to spiral upward. The payment for medical costs is like some big illusion, hidden behind the multiple parties involved. The costs have to be simplified. The patient has to bear some responsibility, to the best of his ability. Somehow, real money has to pay for medical care
Doctors are not having fun. OK, we can't all have fun at our jobs, but doctors are opting out of the system because of the ridiculous bureaucracy involved in paying insurance companies. Doctors have to have large staffs to deal with claims and preauthorizations. It's ridiculous. They feel they have no control anymore. They are told what they will be paid for their services and what they will prescribe, by insurance companies who are only looking at the bottom line.
Lifestyle diseases are hurting all of us. And what are the causes of these lifestyle diseases? Maybe our addiction to work, addiction to food; our succumbing to the seduction of advertising, our unwitting exposure to toxins that are sold to us at a cheap price by profit-seeking corporations.
Pharma companies pay billions to keep the government in their pocket. Now, I could be an apologist for pharma companies because I work for them and I KNOW they have done tons of great things for patients. But I object to the manufacture of medical need (many lifestyle conditions have been created by pharma companies) and we now have a culture of there's nothing that a pill can't cure. My 92-year old aunt took an aspirin a day; my 85 MIL was on 13 separate drugs when she died.
This is a mess. So I think that we need to:
Recognize that we need a combination of private and public funds to pay for healthcare. 50% of the rest of us need good healthcare at an affordable cost. Think about it--if we knew we didn't have to risk our health by going out on our own, that would feed entrepreneurship and economic growth (because a LOT of people only stay in their jobs to keep their health insurance).
Privatize medical services in a creative way. I see nothing wrong with the trend of doctors forming healthcare coops that accept only cash. I don't mind incentivizing such creative ways to privatize care. I heard one idea on the radio where a doctor would be incentivized by the government to provide a certain level of services for people who can't afford them. Stuff like that.
We need public health insurance because a lot of people just can't get affordable healthcare. I have spoken to so many REGULAR patients (not "bloodsuckers of the system") whose quality of life would be so much better if they could just get what any old middle manager at IBM has access to--it's simply not fair. In fact, sometimes when I moderate interviews with patients, it's hard not to cry with the injustice of hardworking people suffering because of this wacky system that just doesn't serve them.
We need to invest in prevention, education, and awareness. We are a reactive society in terms of healthcare. Let's get creative! Let's accept that alternative therapies are another option. Let's invest in conscientious consumerism when it comes to food.*
We have to make the patients accountable for his/her health. In that regard, the old fee-for-service model was much better than the convoluted HMO/PPO model in my opinion. At least it was a clear, understandable business model--cost-sharing between two parties and not a whole bunch of parties--none of whom are ACTUALLY taking the money out of their pockets.
Incentivize doctors to do what they do best rather than making them bean counters. Take Big Brother off their shoulders.
Certain healthcare services should be free. Child immunizations should be free.
Change attitudes of the American people RADICALLY. We've opted for the burn-out life and we're burning out.
*THEN of course there's a whole other list for getting rid of the influence of outdated farm subsidies and other corporate/government dysfunctional arrangements.
I guess that's what I'm thinking right now.
Shoot, I don't know for sure. It's so tangled. I do agree with you that at least Obama is taking a stab at something. It's not perfect, but we have to start somewhere.
I'm thinking the system has to start from the ground up because:
We didn't even HAVE insurance before the end of the 19th century, and it really took off when it was a good perk to provide employees during the industrial era. But there is no good reason to make private employer-based insurance the "norm" now. Under 50% have employer-provided insurance today. So what do we do with the other 50%?
Medical technology has grown incredibly, and it SHOULD NOT BE another gap between the rich and the poor. We're not back in the old days where the most sophisticated medical procedure was an appendectomy. We have the power to put the brakes on a lot of cancers and debilitating disease and if it's good enough for some, it should be good for all.
There are too many chefs in the kitchen. When no one person/body has direct accountability or responsibility for costs, they're just going to spiral upward. The payment for medical costs is like some big illusion, hidden behind the multiple parties involved. The costs have to be simplified. The patient has to bear some responsibility, to the best of his ability. Somehow, real money has to pay for medical care
Doctors are not having fun. OK, we can't all have fun at our jobs, but doctors are opting out of the system because of the ridiculous bureaucracy involved in paying insurance companies. Doctors have to have large staffs to deal with claims and preauthorizations. It's ridiculous. They feel they have no control anymore. They are told what they will be paid for their services and what they will prescribe, by insurance companies who are only looking at the bottom line.
Lifestyle diseases are hurting all of us. And what are the causes of these lifestyle diseases? Maybe our addiction to work, addiction to food; our succumbing to the seduction of advertising, our unwitting exposure to toxins that are sold to us at a cheap price by profit-seeking corporations.
Pharma companies pay billions to keep the government in their pocket. Now, I could be an apologist for pharma companies because I work for them and I KNOW they have done tons of great things for patients. But I object to the manufacture of medical need (many lifestyle conditions have been created by pharma companies) and we now have a culture of there's nothing that a pill can't cure. My 92-year old aunt took an aspirin a day; my 85 MIL was on 13 separate drugs when she died.
This is a mess. So I think that we need to:
Recognize that we need a combination of private and public funds to pay for healthcare. 50% of the rest of us need good healthcare at an affordable cost. Think about it--if we knew we didn't have to risk our health by going out on our own, that would feed entrepreneurship and economic growth (because a LOT of people only stay in their jobs to keep their health insurance).
Privatize medical services in a creative way. I see nothing wrong with the trend of doctors forming healthcare coops that accept only cash. I don't mind incentivizing such creative ways to privatize care. I heard one idea on the radio where a doctor would be incentivized by the government to provide a certain level of services for people who can't afford them. Stuff like that.
We need public health insurance because a lot of people just can't get affordable healthcare. I have spoken to so many REGULAR patients (not "bloodsuckers of the system") whose quality of life would be so much better if they could just get what any old middle manager at IBM has access to--it's simply not fair. In fact, sometimes when I moderate interviews with patients, it's hard not to cry with the injustice of hardworking people suffering because of this wacky system that just doesn't serve them.
We need to invest in prevention, education, and awareness. We are a reactive society in terms of healthcare. Let's get creative! Let's accept that alternative therapies are another option. Let's invest in conscientious consumerism when it comes to food.*
We have to make the patients accountable for his/her health. In that regard, the old fee-for-service model was much better than the convoluted HMO/PPO model in my opinion. At least it was a clear, understandable business model--cost-sharing between two parties and not a whole bunch of parties--none of whom are ACTUALLY taking the money out of their pockets.
Incentivize doctors to do what they do best rather than making them bean counters. Take Big Brother off their shoulders.
Certain healthcare services should be free. Child immunizations should be free.
Change attitudes of the American people RADICALLY. We've opted for the burn-out life and we're burning out.
*THEN of course there's a whole other list for getting rid of the influence of outdated farm subsidies and other corporate/government dysfunctional arrangements.
I guess that's what I'm thinking right now.
I wish so much that Americans had the same health coverage that we enjoy in Canada.
At age 81, I have exceptional health (good genes) and have no health problems at all. I have an excellent family doctor but I seldom need to see him except for an annual flu shot, and even that is free.
I haven't been to a hospital except to give birth to my four sons, other than when I fell down at home a couple of years ago.
An ambulance was called by my one of my sons and I was taken to the hospital. I ended up staying there for two months to recover from my injuries--a broken back and wrist. I was sent home and was given two care aides to make my meals for me. I still get them every day, all without any cost to me.
Like most of people in this country I realize we need to be doing a better job of providing care, especially preventative care IMO, to our citizens, but don't yet have a good handle on what the best approach would be. I'm opposed to Obamacare primarily because of the mandatory aspect of it and simply because I don't think its an approach we can afford. Why start something that big and expensive if you know from the beginning it isn't economically sustainable? Anyway, I'm also not sure there is a way to remove care from the private sector without either leaving an even larger percentage of folks uncovered for an extended period of time or just flat out resorting to tactics we don't really want to see the government using. Overall there aren't many ideas on catherine's list that I'm opposed to. A logical first step that seems to get danced around is setting the floor. What is the absolute minimum level of care that anyone, anywhere and at any time can expect to receive and how, as a society, do we pay for that? If we can just answer those two questions half the work is done.
gimmethesimplelife
6-8-12, 10:10am
I have read a good many of these posts here in regards to the US Health Care System. It dawns on me that I am such a fatalist - my first instinct with health care is run run run as fast as you can - have things done in Mexico and then when you get older, run off to somwhere like Peru or Uruguay or somewhere like that - somewhere with affordable health care that is easy to get permanent residency for. That should give a good idea of how little hope I have for health care in the US and how disgusted I am with the system as is. But, people like me don't stick around to change the system and I really respect those who have some hope and some gumption to believe that can change can be affected and are willing to converse and possibly do something about it rather than give up and run. My way strikes me as very self serving - but yet very practical, but like I said, if we all run, how is anything going to change for the better? Some food for thought......Rob
Like most of people in this country I realize we need to be doing a better job of providing care, especially preventative care IMO, to our citizens, but don't yet have a good handle on what the best approach would be. I'm opposed to Obamacare primarily because of the mandatory aspect of it and simply because I don't think its an approach we can afford. Why start something that big and expensive if you know from the beginning it isn't economically sustainable? Anyway, I'm also not sure there is a way to remove care from the private sector without either leaving an even larger percentage of folks uncovered for an extended period of time or just flat out resorting to tactics we don't really want to see the government using. Overall there aren't many ideas on catherine's list that I'm opposed to. A logical first step that seems to get danced around is setting the floor. What is the absolute minimum level of care that anyone, anywhere and at any time can expect to receive and how, as a society, do we pay for that? If we can just answer those two questions half the work is done.
Catherine has some very good ideas, very well thought out. Health care shouldn't be for profit any more than police and fire protection, but there you are. We can't go back and privatize the whole thing, but if we had universal health care, like other countries, there could still be a private element for those who so choose. Just as there is private options for seniors, but, how many exercise that option? How many republican seniors exercise that? How many republican congress-persons refuse government run health care, which is excellent I might add.
I know you are a compassionate person gregg, who really thinks of these problems and wants a solution, but to be honest guy, your response is typical of many people, especially on the right. You say the system is broke, we need to change it, it's not working..... but not what the democrats are trying, so let's go back to what was, which is still broken by the way, and talk about it and think about it and sing songs about it and have study groups and fact finding missions, yada yada yada...in other words, do nothing.
Unless, and until you (collective you) come up with some solutions, and not just bumper stickers about how broke the system is (yeah yeah we KNOW it's broke!) then I'm sticking with President Obama. At least he's trying, actual forward movement, and not just talk. The nation is tired of talk, it's time for action.
The mandate argument doesn't really pass the smell test, in that throughout history our government issued 'mandates' to purchase, starting with everyone required to have a gun, and more recently, women must get an unnecessary ultrasound to have a legal medical procedure and of course, everyone must purchase a picture ID to vote (student ID doesn't count but gun registration does...I wonder who thought that one up!) So, saying that is the problem is kind of bogus. (I'll refer back to my contention that until people are literally dying in the hospital parking lot because they are refused treatment due to no insurance, then I'm glad Obamacare is trying to address this and cover us taxpayers, the hospital, doctors and nurses from these slackers who don't think they need insurance..until of course they need it!)
Is Obamacare perfect? No. So, what about it would you change, besides the insurance part? Let's start there, and move forward, instead of backwards as most republicans seem to want. I know change is difficult, but we all agree it's broken, so now that we have some movement, let's start there, and continue forward.
You know, for all the hand wringing and demonizing, most of the plan hasn't even gone into effect yet (but you wouldn't know that from the average low information voter who thinks it's all in effect, free to everyone, failed, and ready to be tossed aside.)
I happen to like one of the provisions that HAS gone into effect, that which let's me keep my young adult daughter on the family plan while she finishes school. This is a good thing. Young people are generally healthy and don't usually require expensive meds or hospitalizations, so why not allow this. It's not like I'm getting this for free, we pay for this.
What other parts of the plan do you not like? You realize it's mostly insurance regulations, like not kicking people off who develop cancer, or not covering anyone who might ever get sick, or even think about getting sick, or who might have been sick as a baby but are quite healthy now. (oh, they will cover these people, take their money sure enough, but if they ever need it, a search of their life might find out they had acne, or a hernia or something so, no coverage) Maybe these provisions are what you object to? Maybe you object to hospice for end of life care, or a counselor to advise people about end of life care and what their options are? Is this what you object to? Or maybe you have the fear that more for everyone else means less for you?
I really want to hear your objections, besides the requirement that everyone plays so everyone pays. What provisions do you not like? Let's start there.
Well peggy, maybe my response has become typical because there are so many people out there repeating it. I'm one of what I think is a pretty large group of people who chose to not associate with either political party. Healthcare is one of many examples of why. Speaking for myself, not for all independents, I actually like the compassion on the Democratic side as far as wanting to provide access to good quality care for everyone. I'm not naive enough to think that is the only motivation within that party, but nonetheless would love to see that situation come about. One obstacle in trying to account for everyone individually is that it naturally leads to crazy amounts of legislation being written (like 2700 pages) because the authors are trying to include every single possibility. That is very compassionate, but from a legislative standpoint it just doesn't make sense.
The other down side is that a lot of people with this vision don't seem to take a realistic look at what it really costs to accomplish. While I'm all for caring for anyone who needs it, I don't want to bankrupt the country to do it. People lose sight of the possibility that exponentially increased debt could ultimately cause more pain and suffering in different, but possibly much broader, ways than a lack of universal healthcare. It's a risk I see as very real and one I'm not comfortable taking.
The current Republican stance appears to be just slam anything the Dems come up with. They haven't really proposed anything of value and I don't expect they will in the next 153 days. I agree with you that they're basically a bumper sticker factory right now. The "anybody but XXX" is not the kind of platform that appeals to me.
The question for this fiscally conservative, compassionate voter is how do we care for everyone without breaking the bank. It's about that simple. I do not want to become a country with 60% or 70% base tax rates and a government that "provides" all the necessities for us. That apparently works pretty well for a whole lot of people in this world, it just wouldn't for me so I use my vote to head in a different direction. I think our ever increasing debt is close to reaching an unsustainable level and that if we do not manage it in a very astute fashion it could trigger a time when healthcare seems like a pretty low priority. If a candidate comes up with a solution I like believe me it will get posted here. In the mean time healthcare remains less of a priority for me than other issues I believe have a more significant and immediate impact on our country.
ApatheticNoMore
6-8-12, 1:22pm
Maybe what is considered nutritionally healthy always has an element of trendy to it. Was reading on the history of bread the other day (looking inside this book on Amazon). If we eat bread at all nowdays, we value homemade or artisan (ha!) bread. But machine manufactured bread was originally considered far more hygenic and thus healthy than homemade bread (think fear of infectious disease in an age before antibiotics). And contrary to the current emphasis on whole grains in mid last century enriched white bread was just considered super healthy. It is ENRICHED with all these essential vitamins and builds strong, bones, and muscles and is what you *should* feed your kids so they can grow up strong, don't you know?
Also in the old days people ate a LOT of bread. They averaged from the turn of the 20th century to the 1960s, 6-8 slices of bread a person a day! Wow. I don't know about you, but to modern lower carb sensibilities that seems like a LOT of bread!! And they weren't fat! Of course they were likely more active, and they weren't eating corn syrup or drinking large sodas (although they did eat sugar - sugar consumption was never that low I don't think), and they certainly weren't eating modern high omega 6 fats (those and trans fats are truly modern in being so widespread).
http://www.amazon.com/White-Bread-Social-History-Store-Bought/dp/0807044679/
No, I don't think we will ever reach a day when empty big gulp calories, with no evolutionary history at all in the human diet (I mean you can debate to what extent primitive people ate say grains, but you can't debate they were eating coca cola!) will be considered health food. And I like to think nutrition progresses and that we have a better idea about it now etc.. But it's quite possible being fat won't be seen as so bad in retrospect (some people say so now), it is even possible that sugar won't be seen as so bad in retrospect (although evidence points to it as quite bad now). When the whole state of the planet hangs in balance I'll go with the best scientific evidence we have now, and I'll go all in, but what you personally put in your mouth ...
And now back to your regularly scheduled healthcare debate.
Health care shouldn't be for profit any more than police and fire protection, ...
I'm always curious what is meant by "not for profit" in this sort of case. Should food be "not for profit"? Housing? Education? Clothing? Transportation? Electricity, water, telephone service, Internet access?
Let's look at public safety.
Policemen clearly get paid for their time, above minimum wage, at a rate hopefully reflective of their years of training and the demands of the profession. Police management get paid as well. The companies that make police cars get paid for their products, and presumably make some profit on the manufacture of the car. The companies that make police uniforms and guns similarly make a profit. The fellow selling the land upon which the police station is built, the contractor who built the structure, the suppliers of bricks and cement all made a profit.
So which specific "profit" is the problem?
Perhaps you are thinking of a scenario in which someone like Omni Consumer Products buys the police force and runs it, and then charges the city a "profit" for its management services, which is billed to the taxpayer? Now, if they are delivering superior service at a lower overall cost to the taxpayer because of their management expertise, what's the problem with them being compensated (as "profit") for their efforts? If they are delivering an inferior product, with artificially-high prices, and bilking the taxpayer for the costs, and pocketing the money while sitting on a tropical beach, well, that's a different story.
I suspect in some areas the police unions would get upset at the competition for the unearned public dollar though :-)
The problem is not physicians getting paid for their services, the problem is adding for-profit entities like insurance companies into the mix that are answerable foremost to their shareholders and that pay their CEOs billions to keep costs down by denying care. We could look at countries who do health care more efficiently than we do (all of them, apparently). Those few who allow for-profit agencies into the mix do so under strict regulations. I haven't seen anything good come of privatizing functions traditionally performed by state agencies, but I could have missed one, I guess. (I tried to buy a pint of brandy yesterday. Hahaha. Washington insider humor.)
I'm mystified at how people are supposed to pay for basic--let alone catastrophic--medical care at current laissez-faire rates, pay off staggering college debts (a relatively new and again, profit-driven phenomenon), save hundreds of thousands to pay for their SS-free retirements--all while working at $14 an hour jobs. If they're lucky enough to have one of the few jobs that hasn't been gleefully off-shored by the "job creators."
"Now, if they are delivering superior service at a lower overall cost to the taxpayer because of their management expertise, what's the problem with them being compensated (as "profit") for their efforts?"
In my experience, a little profit is never enough with these people. If they were happy with small, consistent profit margins and a high-quality product, I would take your point. But those pesky shareholders and greedy CEOs are never satisfied, it seems.
...
The other down side is that a lot of people with this vision don't seem to take a realistic look at what it really costs to accomplish. While I'm all for caring for anyone who needs it, I don't want to bankrupt the country to do it. People lose sight of the possibility that exponentially increased debt could ultimately cause more pain and suffering in different, but possibly much broader, ways than a lack of universal healthcare. It's a risk I see as very real and one I'm not comfortable taking.
...
Our national health care costs are about double what civilized countries pay out. Surely we can do as well as they do, if not better, if we set our minds to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/health/policy/an-interview-with-victor-fuchs-on-health-care-costs.html (Thoughtful article on just this subject)
In my experience, a little profit is never enough with these people.
How profitable are they?
Health South, a Big Evil Hospital Company, that my mother has sued multiple times: Profit Margin: 8.4%, Return on Assets: 10.24%
United Medical, a Very Large Medical Insurance Company: Profit Margin: 5.0%, Return on Assets: 7.75%
Apple, an Earth-friendly hipster company: Profit Margin: 27.13%, Return on Assets: 25.84%
Starbucks: Profit Margin: 10.56%, Return on Assets: 13.45%
ApatheticNoMore
6-8-12, 4:46pm
Health South, a Big Evil Hospital Company, that my mother has sued multiple times: Profit Margin: 8.4%, Return on Assets: 10.24%
There can be ways that these companies are ridiculously inefficient that doesn't show up as profit. Like if your pour massive amounts into new machinery used by almost noone or fancy new hospital wings. But how could any hosptial do that and stay competitive? Oligopoly and 3rd party payers so noone really sees the cost (whatever costs you see on your bill will certainly have no relationship to anything).
I'm always curious what is meant by "not for profit" in this sort of case. Should food be "not for profit"? Housing? Education? Clothing? Transportation? Electricity, water, telephone service, Internet access?
Let's look at public safety.
Policemen clearly get paid for their time, above minimum wage, at a rate hopefully reflective of their years of training and the demands of the profession. Police management get paid as well. The companies that make police cars get paid for their products, and presumably make some profit on the manufacture of the car. The companies that make police uniforms and guns similarly make a profit. The fellow selling the land upon which the police station is built, the contractor who built the structure, the suppliers of bricks and cement all made a profit.
So which specific "profit" is the problem?
Perhaps you are thinking of a scenario in which someone like Omni Consumer Products buys the police force and runs it, and then charges the city a "profit" for its management services, which is billed to the taxpayer? Now, if they are delivering superior service at a lower overall cost to the taxpayer because of their management expertise, what's the problem with them being compensated (as "profit") for their efforts? If they are delivering an inferior product, with artificially-high prices, and bilking the taxpayer for the costs, and pocketing the money while sitting on a tropical beach, well, that's a different story.
I suspect in some areas the police unions would get upset at the competition for the unearned public dollar though :-)
Glad you asked bae, cause this is something lots of folks get confused with. Non profit doesn't mean free. It doesn't mean people work for free. Everyone makes a very good living, but the 'investment' element is removed. With the police force, all the police and management make good livings, with benefits, but a corporation doesn't own the police force with the expectation of making a profit. Yes, some small towns (and large) use it as such, but they aren't supposed to write tickets to profit. And with universal health care, all the doctors and nurses and administrators get a very good salary. But the hospital isn't owned by a big corporation who expects a huge return on investment by kicking folks out whose insurance runs out, or ordering all kinds of unnecessary tests to run that insurance out.
Again, non profit does not mean free. A common misunderstanding.
I don't misunderstand that at all.
But I'm curious where the line between acceptable and unacceptable "profit" is.
In your reply, you seem to indicate it is to be found around here:
"but a corporation doesn't own the police force with the expectation of making a profit."
"But the hospital isn't owned by a big corporation who expects a huge return on investment "
"the 'investment' element is removed".
That is, the ownership of the capital required for the enterprise is the issue. You seem OK with profit for labor.
ApatheticNoMore
6-8-12, 5:00pm
I'm mystified at how people are supposed to pay for basic--let alone catastrophic--medical care at current laissez-faire rates, pay off staggering college debts (a relatively new and again, profit-driven phenomenon), save hundreds of thousands to pay for their SS-free retirements--
with zero return on their investment apparently, or really if your are investing in index funds there's no return lately. So add to that on top of a 40 hour (ha, if your lucky!) work week and commuting, become investment experts in their free time (you know in between parenting and keeping a house etc.), so they can eek more than 0% return out of their investments, for their SS-free retirement. Personal responsibility might be code for being, well at least a multi-millionaire (but preferably a billioinaire you know), what you aren't there yet? What have you been doing grasshoppering your whole life away? :)
Layers and layers of profits add up, I guess.
One article I read asserted that medical insurance profits had tripled over the last ten years--while the economy faltered.
According to this article last year in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html :
"The nation’s major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits, enriched in recent months by a lingering recessionary mind-set among Americans who are postponing or forgoing medical care."
As far as medical insurers go, I can't use the analogy of a leech because leeches can provide medical benefits.
Well peggy, maybe my response has become typical because there are so many people out there repeating it. I'm one of what I think is a pretty large group of people who chose to not associate with either political party. Healthcare is one of many examples of why. Speaking for myself, not for all independents, I actually like the compassion on the Democratic side as far as wanting to provide access to good quality care for everyone. I'm not naive enough to think that is the only motivation within that party, but nonetheless would love to see that situation come about. One obstacle in trying to account for everyone individually is that it naturally leads to crazy amounts of legislation being written (like 2700 pages) because the authors are trying to include every single possibility. That is very compassionate, but from a legislative standpoint it just doesn't make sense.
The other down side is that a lot of people with this vision don't seem to take a realistic look at what it really costs to accomplish. While I'm all for caring for anyone who needs it, I don't want to bankrupt the country to do it. People lose sight of the possibility that exponentially increased debt could ultimately cause more pain and suffering in different, but possibly much broader, ways than a lack of universal healthcare. It's a risk I see as very real and one I'm not comfortable taking.
The current Republican stance appears to be just slam anything the Dems come up with. They haven't really proposed anything of value and I don't expect they will in the next 153 days. I agree with you that they're basically a bumper sticker factory right now. The "anybody but XXX" is not the kind of platform that appeals to me.
The question for this fiscally conservative, compassionate voter is how do we care for everyone without breaking the bank. It's about that simple. I do not want to become a country with 60% or 70% base tax rates and a government that "provides" all the necessities for us. That apparently works pretty well for a whole lot of people in this world, it just wouldn't for me so I use my vote to head in a different direction. I think our ever increasing debt is close to reaching an unsustainable level and that if we do not manage it in a very astute fashion it could trigger a time when healthcare seems like a pretty low priority. If a candidate comes up with a solution I like believe me it will get posted here. In the mean time healthcare remains less of a priority for me than other issues I believe have a more significant and immediate impact on our country.
OK gregg, I hear you. Yes, your response is common, but that doesn't make it right, or helpful. But we have something here. let's keep going.
It IS expensive, yes, we agree. And everyone should have basic health care, again we agree.
Does that basic health care include care when a man, say in his 50's, has a heart attack? Does it include car accidents? Both very expensive and happening to fairly young people, in the case of the car accident, all ages. Not 'end of life' people (i.e. in their 80's with multiple health problems) but people who can live many decades in good health. Does your basic care include them? Falling off a ladder, breaking an arm, hip, whatever? Meningitis? Whooping cough? And all the expensive things that happen randomly to otherwise healthy, youngish people? I'm just trying to set the ground rules here. What does basic health care look like and, where do we cut it off. (see very small list above) I mean, do we tell the young mother, we'll check your kids ears, but we won't set his bones, or treat him for asthma. To me basic health care includes everything we can reasonably do with modern medicine to get oneself from cradle to grave. I'm not including extraordinary measures, because those are, well , extraordinary.(no heart transplant for everyone)
so, we have established it's expensive. Now here's the good part. See, this whole mandate thing that the right keeps pushing on and trying to use as a weapon is the very thing that makes this all possible. Of course the republicans know this which is why they keep trying to nullify it because, well, job #1 and all, but it really is the beauty of Obamacare, (and Romneycare too, but we aren't supposed to talk about that!) See, everyone will need health care, cradle to grave, so everyone pays. Granted, insurance companies are still in the mix, which I hate, but if Obama has a fault it's that he tried to hard to please the right, who really only want to defeat him and don't give a squat about the country or health care or you or I. He should have gone for universal health care, but we know how far that would have gotten!
Anyway, everybody pays and strict restrictions are placed on insurance companies (because we still have to deal with them) so everyone can be covered.
So, it's expensive, we agree.
Everyone should have basic health coverage, whatever that looks like, we agree.
Who pays for it? If you don't want to buy insurance, who pays for it? Who pays for your heart attack? Who pays for your motorcycle accident?
Everyone makes a very good living, but the 'investment' element is removed.
It's my experience that people with nothing invested typically do not operate with the same sense of resolution as those who are invested in an enterprise. And we should not expect that because they just don't have the same incentive. The preeminent example given is usually government employees although there may be no one more qualified to "oversee".
And I'm not trying to dodge the debate of how we achieve healthcare for all. The simple truth is that I'm drawn to certain candidates because of their stance on issues that I feel are most critical. At this point in our history I just don't feel that healthcare is one of those. You, of course, have every right to assign different priorities to issues.
I do think we have the basics here for a good discussion. We've been working on it as a group for quite a while now. I wish I had a wise and workable answer that could just be injected in to the current system to fix all the problems, but I don't and I doubt anyone else does either. It's an extremely complex issue that at some point is going to affect every one of us so I do agree that it is critical to get it right. I just don't know what that is.
The truth is that I feel more qualified to discuss something like national energy policy or, to a lesser degree, housing policy. I'm only 6 feet wide, but a mile deep. Healthcare is one of those issues that, in the real world, I will probably remain reactionary to by simply voting for the least evil option on the table. Not proud of that, but I don't have the time or energy or desire to become an expert in that field. I do, however, have rather strong, generally negative opinions when healthcare spills over into the nanny state mentality that began this thread.
It's my experience that people with nothing invested typically do not operate with the same sense of resolution as those who are invested in an enterprise.
I'm also curious where the capital to fund development and production of cool new medical technologies will be coming from, if we eliminate the "investment element"?
I myself don't invest in the medical/health care field much - profit margins and ROI are usually not very good/predictable, compared to other sectors. Under the "remove the investment element" approach, I suspect capital access would dry up even more.
Of course, you could just tax people and take their money to provide the capital.
I'm also curious where the capital to fund development and production of cool new medical technologies will be coming from, if we eliminate the "investment element"?
I myself don't invest in the medical/health care field much - profit margins and ROI are usually not very good/predictable, compared to other sectors. Under the "remove the investment element" approach, I suspect capital access would dry up even more.
Of course, you could just tax people and take their money to provide the capital.
The government is already heavily subsidizing Pharma research, enabling them to crank out oodles of redundant, dangerous, and ill-tested drugs (and a few useful ones) with reduced financial risk to themselves.
Medical technologies are a gray area, in my mind. I have less problem with investors there. My main beef is with all the layers of middlemen shuffling papers and not adding value.
It's my experience that people with nothing invested typically do not operate with the same sense of resolution as those who are invested in an enterprise. And we should not expect that because they just don't have the same incentive. The preeminent example given is usually government employees although there may be no one more qualified to "oversee".
And I'm not trying to dodge the debate of how we achieve healthcare for all. The simple truth is that I'm drawn to certain candidates because of their stance on issues that I feel are most critical. At this point in our history I just don't feel that healthcare is one of those. You, of course, have every right to assign different priorities to issues.
I do think we have the basics here for a good discussion. We've been working on it as a group for quite a while now. I wish I had a wise and workable answer that could just be injected in to the current system to fix all the problems, but I don't and I doubt anyone else does either. It's an extremely complex issue that at some point is going to affect every one of us so I do agree that it is critical to get it right. I just don't know what that is.
The truth is that I feel more qualified to discuss something like national energy policy or, to a lesser degree, housing policy. I'm only 6 feet wide, but a mile deep. Healthcare is one of those issues that, in the real world, I will probably remain reactionary to by simply voting for the least evil option on the table. Not proud of that, but I don't have the time or energy or desire to become an expert in that field. I do, however, have rather strong, generally negative opinions when healthcare spills over into the nanny state mentality that began this thread.
Oh Gregg...are you really saying government employees don't' do as good or thorough a job as, you? Or someone who works at a for profit company? Really? They don't have the same dedication? Wow, I'm sure that's news to all the military out there who are being, you know, shot at for their jobs. How much dedication do you want dude? I guess i should inform my husband that he should dial back and, you know, eat bon bons and watch Oprah, like all those other government employees instead of dedicating himself to the veterans at the VA. And my daughter, who only has a student position, should probably stop giving blood as often as she can cause, you know, she ONLY works for a non profit. What a bunch of slackers! If they had any self respect, or motivation apparently, they'd quit their jobs now and go work for an insurance company. Now there is a purpose!
Those evil evil government employees!
My main beef is with all the layers of middlemen shuffling papers and not adding value.
So you want to let the government run it? :laff:
At least those evil capitalists have an incentive to cut out the costs that don't add value.
I don't misunderstand that at all.
But I'm curious where the line between acceptable and unacceptable "profit" is.
In your reply, you seem to indicate it is to be found around here:
"but a corporation doesn't own the police force with the expectation of making a profit."
"But the hospital isn't owned by a big corporation who expects a huge return on investment "
"the 'investment' element is removed".
That is, the ownership of the capital required for the enterprise is the issue. You seem OK with profit for labor.
So, you want a for profit police force? For profit fire protection? Why don't you just move to south America! And what incentives do we give the police to bring in that profit? And what would that board of directors meeting look like?
See, when our health and very lives are at stake, like with police, fire, and open heart surgery, the bottom line shouldn't be the top priority. It's crass, and dehumanizing that we demand money before we give life saving medical treatment. We may call ourselves a compassionate nation, but it means nothing if medical treatment is denied because someone can't pay.
I guess you've never been in a first class military medical facility. No slackers, plenty of dedication, and first rate care. All without a profit motive. Doesn't mean it's free. The costs cover a well paid staff, facility upkeep and equipment use and replacement, but there isn't a line of 'investors' standing with their hand out expecting a huge return.
Now we aren't stupid, even though you seem to think we are. Everyone knows the difference between profit for your labor and profit from investment. You keep trying to insinuate that non profit is free. Let's see if i can put it another way.
President Obama, who makes a decent wage and is a government employee, works to 'profit' everyone in the country, rich, poor, democrat, republican, worker, elderly, everyone. Mitt Romney, who likes to fire people (although his favorite people are corporations) worked ONLY to 'gain profit' for the investor class, raking them in lots of money. See, that's the difference. Obama is non profit and Romney is ONLY for the profiteers.
So you want to let the government run it? :laff:
At least those evil capitalists have an incentive to cut out the costs that don't add value.
Actually the evil capitalists are the ones running the government. At at least have a huge input on how it's being run.
Peggy, really now, be civil. It is impossible to even attempt to engage in conversation with you when you insist on erecting straw man positions, placing words into the mouths of others, and attributing base motives to them.
It is dishonest, and not conducive to any rational discussion.
loosechickens
6-9-12, 12:18am
What makes me CRAZY about this whole "Obamacare" individual mandate business is that it was originally, completely a conservative, Republican idea......that all these "freeloaders" who should be getting coverage, weren't, and then were showing up at emergency rooms on the taxpayers' dime. The whole idea was to force individual responsibility, and Mitt Romney, the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and a host of others were all for that individual mandate that would ensure people had to purchase health insurance, so we wouldn't be giving that proverbial "free ride" to so many people.
THEN, as soon as President Obama tried to incorporate their ideas into the health care reform plan, their desire to obstruct and be against anything at all he wanted to do, even if it was THEIR idea in the first place, kicked in, because their desire to see him lose was greater than their desire to find solutions.
How did all those "freeloaders" all of a sudden turn into "freedom loving patriots" being forced by a big bad government to buy something, as opposed to folks not taking responsibility for getting healthcare insurance, and thereby being layabouts just expecting the taxpapers to save them when they showed up in emergency rooms needing lifesaving care? Which is how the Republican/conservatives were portraying them when THEY were pushing an individual mandate.
And, why is something that is designed to ensure that coverage is available to all, while utilizing our private enterprise system, but trying to make it more effective, such a bad thing? Do we somehow think that by bleating about repealing "Obamacare", that we can make the problems of fifty million people not having health insurance, insurance companies cherry picking who they will ensure in an effort to have as few people who might NEED care on their rolls as they can manage, ensuring higher profits for their shareholders, just go away?
At least this President has TRIED to address the problems. I am sick to death of all the people determined to tear the plan down, but with no coherent idea as to how to get people with pre-existing conditions covered, try to bend costs, or get us out of this morass of paying massively more money than other countries with effective systems pay, yet having results so poor in comparison. It's hard not to believe that the game at hand is simply "make sure that Obama can't succeed, even if we drag the country down in the process". They've shown their willingness to bring us to the brink of defaulting on debt for the first time in our history to make political points.
Maybe we ARE headed toward another civil war, because polarity seems to be so complete that if Obama somehow came up with something (like the individual mandate) that every rightwinger wanted, they would immediately switch sides, swear up and down they never wanted any such thing (as they are doing on the individual mandate), and we'd be off to the races again.
Why, why, why are we practically the only developed democracy in the world, especially among the several dozen richest countries, who haven't solved this problem, who have many millions of our citizens without healthcare coverage, and that we pay more than twice as much as other countries for results that often don't even put us in the top several dozen countries in various measures of effectiveness of health care?
Why, why, why are we practically the only developed democracy in the world, ...?
Perhaps because of our history. We are a republic, formed rather differently than most other countries.
Should we be just like all the other "democracies"?
Why, why, why are we practically the only developed democracy in the world, especially among the several dozen richest countries, who haven't solved this problem, who have many millions of our citizens without healthcare coverage, and that we pay more than twice as much as other countries for results that often don't even put us in the top several dozen countries in various measures of effectiveness of health care?
Because in the US the primary purpose of healthcare isn't healthcare - it's to make money.
"Because in the US the primary purpose of healthcare isn't healthcare - it's to make money. " How true!
Good article in the New England Journal of Medicine talking about just ONE ASPECT (administration) of differing healthcare costs between US and Canada:
Results:
In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)
Concusion:
The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.
Because of all the different, convoluted private (and public) insurers in this country, doctors and hospitals have to employ huge staffs just to sort it all out. That's just one aspect--we're not even talking about the price of drugs, malpractice insurance, and professional service fees.
Because of all the different, convoluted private (and public) insurers in this country, doctors and hospitals have to employ huge staffs just to sort it all out. That's just one aspect--we're not even talking about the price of drugs, malpractice, and professional service fees.
When I lived in California, I had a great doctor. He and his partner gave up their complex practice, because they were tired of having to be office managers and deal with mountains of paperwork. They closed up shop, and opened up a walk-in, no-appointments, cash-only, no-insurance-taken clinic, because they simply wanted to practice medicine.
To see them, you showed up, handed $50 to the one staff person in the place, then waited, anywhere from 0->60 mins, then you saw the doctor, and he'd spend as much time as necessary to deal with your situation. If it was something complicated that involved having to go the the hospital, then you had to re-enter the world of paperwork.
Where I live now, the not-for-profit clinic I use has: 1 doctor, one nurse-practitioner, 1 nurse, a tech, and about 5 office staff people who seem to handle billing/insurance all day long. The paperwork staff to my eye seems to outnumber the medical staff at any moment in time, and they used to have *more* staff before they became a non-profit operation. And this doctor will see and treat anyone who walks in, regardless of ability to pay. He's not in it for the money, he just wants to practice medicine.
Peggy, really now, be civil. It is impossible to even attempt to engage in conversation with you when you insist on erecting straw man positions, placing words into the mouths of others, and attributing base motives to them.
It is dishonest, and not conducive to any rational discussion.
bae, you are right. I'm sorry if i sometimes rub the wrong way. I just get so tired of the same old arguments. And to be honest, you sometimes have a way of twisting people's meanings to mean something else.
You know I believe in people getting paid for their work, and I'm guessing you haven't lived your entire life secluded on your island, so you've seen successful not for profit business. You know everyone makes a good living and they work. Not socialist, or some evil, subversive creep of communism, or whatever.
This world, and even this country is full of successful, purposeful enterprise that isn't for profit. Profit really isn't the end all to beat all. Just a stroll through these forums here will show you that. There really are bigger things out there than profit.
Now I'm not at all opposed to profit. I am an American through and through and think capitalism is a wonderful thing, where appropriate. And there is plenty for investors to make loads of money in. There just shouldn't be a profit in playing god.
Peggy - again you persist. I asked a very simple question above - "which specific 'profit' is the problem?"
I did not invoke any of the demons you are railing against. You are arguing with someone else, apparently.
bae, I believe I answered you. Just because you don't accept my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer.
No profit: police, fire department, military, direct medical care (doesn't include scalpel producers, rubber tubing manufactures, etc.. Does include hospitals, access, clinics, immunizations, etc..) our government, and probably a few smaller ones I can't think of right now. And it's not just the life and death aspect, although that is certainly important, but it is also the corruption aspect that is ALWAYS present when these are profit enterprises.
loosechickens
6-10-12, 12:13am
In the "profit", "not for profit" sense, I don't see anything wrong with a company making a profit providing a product or service, but in the case of "for profit" health care entitites, it's as though they are NOT in the business of providing health care, but primarily in the business of producing profit for stockholders, often at the expense of the people they are supposed to be serving by providing health insurance or health care.
When it becomes more profitable for you to deny care, and that is how you produce profits, then the whole basic idea of your business being "providing health care or insurance" has been compromised. You're not in the business of providing health care or insurance, and in fact, providing those things to your customers actually cuts into your profit, so the incentive is NOT to produce better care, but to provide as little as you can get away with.
The incentives are mixed up. And rather than blame a profit making entity for trying to make a profit the best way they can, we should be asking ourselves how could the best quality and amount of care be provided, not depending on a system that actually has another objective in mind. The objective being maximizing profit for stockholders rather than maximizing care for the policyholders. No point blaming the companies, it's the system that is skewed.
To me, it's almost exactly like blaming Bain Capital for maximizing profits to their stockholders even if it meant lots of folks losing jobs or companies being caused to go bankrupt. Bain Capital was NOT in the business of creating jobs, or in business to grow businesses so that more workers could be employed. They were (and are) in the business of going into a business, assessing how best to make the most possible money for their stockholders and executives, and sometimes that meant creating jobs, but the creation of jobs was a byproduct, not the purpose, and sometimes it meant bankrupting a business because more profit could be made for Bain Capital by doing so.
If the business of creating jobs was what they were doing, then creating jobs flew right in the face of their prime objective, which was to make money for themselves. The only problem with that is if we were under the impression, somehow, that what they were in business to do was to create jobs.
If we recognize that making a profit for stockholders is the business of many healthcare companies, then it is almost wrong to blame them for providing poor access to care. If they ran their businesses to provide the best kind of health care, it wouldn't make as much profit. Providing the health care is almost a byproduct, rather than their purpose, and often providing that care runs directly counter to what is in their own best interest, which is to deny as much care as they can, cherry pick who they are willing to insure, trying not to pick anyone likely to need expensive care. That is their business model, and expecting them not to do that is like expecting Bain Capital to be mostly concerned with whether jobs are created, or whether people are laid off......putting their attention onto THOSE things would be counter to what their actual purpose of being in business IS.
are we to blame a tiger for not being a lamb? If we want good, quality health care to be provided to our citizens, whether by private companies or a public option, we've got to have a system where such companies or systems are rewarded for doing the best possible job of providing that health care.
I don't blame the companies. Heck, we've made some very nice profits and dividends in some health insurance companies. They are doing what they are designed to do, make profits for their investors. They are not really in the business of providing health care, let alone providing the very BEST health care they can. We need a new system with different incentives.
Otherwise, we are just blaming health care companies for doing what they are actually designed to do, just as we blame Bain Capital for costing people jobs, when they are just doing what they are designed to do, which is to make profits for stockholders, not to create jobs. (I never thought I'd be in the position of defending Bain Capital OR health care companies, but it is a very similar situation, and blaming them for being good at what they are actually designed to do is not right).
What might BE right would be figuring out a way to have a health care system where providing the best quality care would be incentivized to the company, so THAT would be the best way for them to profit, rather than what we have now, which is them denying as much care as they possibly can to increase profits.
LC, once again you say it better than everyone else! Very well put!
Yossarian
6-10-12, 12:16pm
Otherwise, we are just blaming health care companies for doing what they are actually designed to do, just as we blame Bain Capital for costing people jobs, when they are just doing what they are designed to do, which is to make profits for stockholders, not to create jobs. (I never thought I'd be in the position of defending Bain Capital OR health care companies, but it is a very similar situation, and blaming them for being good at what they are actually designed to do is not right).
What might BE right would be figuring out a way to have a health care system where providing the best quality care would be incentivized to the company, so THAT would be the best way for them to profit, rather than what we have now, which is them denying as much care as they possibly can to increase profits.
Your analogy is flawed, Bain is not a consumer company. Every consumer business weighs costs, price and service/quality levels. Companies can try to cut costs to maximize profit by denying service or features or quality parts, whether it's Apple, Accenture, IBM or United Healthcare, but they still have to try to produce a good product or they are out of business. As long as consumers have choices then the companies have the incentives you mention (note: it's called capitalism).
If you don't like capitalism and consumer choice, maybe consider the old mutual insurance company system where the policy holders were the owners. Any profit gets paid back to the policy holders, but it is still run like a business.
There just shouldn't be a profit in playing god.
Right. We should leave the god-playing to politics.
Right. We should leave the god-playing to politics.
Isn't that the real issue?
Rather than government being a servant to the people, it has assumed the role of our master, with the consent of a frighteningly large percentage of the governed.
Hopefully, a larger percentage will resist.
Isn't that the real issue?
Rather than government being a servant to the people, it has assumed the role of our master, with the consent of a frighteningly large percentage of the governed.
Hopefully, a larger percentage will resist.
OH please! I'd rather have universal health care than the Profit making god-doing insurance companies we have now! And please don't forget, republicans aren't the ONLY Americans. The MAJORITY of us Americans WANT SS and Medicare, and unemployment insurance, and teachers and firemen and police, and good roads and safe food and water, and all those other things our 'evil' government does for us. Just because YOU DON'T WANT IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT WANTED!
ApatheticNoMore
6-11-12, 11:55am
By government playing god you mean Obama's drone program right? What is Romney's opinion on it?
Isn't that the real issue?
Rather than government being a servant to the people, it has assumed the role of our master, with the consent of a frighteningly large percentage of the governed.
Hopefully, a larger percentage will resist.
I have no idea what resistence in any real sense would look like. Still hoping for a Ron Paul win? Do we have word from Romney that he opposes the drone killings, the NDAA, etc.? Real resistence movements to real tyranny are RADICAL, people dragging their selves to the polls (between big gulps :~)), and voting in elections that are riggable and even if not rigged bought and paid for, isn't it. Though there might be an occasional good candidate at the lower levels.
Isn't that the real issue?
Rather than government being a servant to the people, it has assumed the role of our master, with the consent of a frighteningly large percentage of the governed.
Hopefully, a larger percentage will resist.
Well, corporations are people - and the government seems to be serving them very well. And any that aren't being served well are more likely just facing opposing corporate interests.
OH please! I'd rather have universal health care than the Profit making god-doing insurance companies we have now! And please don't forget, republicans aren't the ONLY Americans. The MAJORITY of us Americans WANT SS and Medicare, and unemployment insurance, and teachers and firemen and police, and good roads and safe food and water, and all those other things our 'evil' government does for us. Just because YOU DON'T WANT IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT WANTED!
Peggy, histrionics aside, how much outside control do you want over your life? Just enough to provide essential services, or more than enough to keep you at someone else's mercy?
Also, if you choose 'more than enough' do you want to choose which areas you abdicate responsibility for or will you settle for the 'carte blanche' variety?
I prefer limiting the control outside forces have over me. You may feel differently?
Well, corporations are people - and the government seems to be serving them very well. And any that aren't being served well are more likely just facing opposing corporate interests.
Let's say that corporations, or other associations of individuals, had never existed until now, when a group of forward thinking people decided to form an association and have it represent their interests. Like a Union, if you will.
Under civil law, should that association be treated differently than the sum of it's members?
Let's say that corporations, or other associations of individuals, had never existed until now, when a group of forward thinking people decided to form an association and have it represent their interests. Like a Union, if you will.
Under civil law, should that association be treated differently than the sum of it's members?
The real question is whether people or associations or corporations should be treated differently based on the sum of its money? Poor corporations have no more pull in government than poor unions, associations, or people.
The real question is whether people or associations or corporations should be treated differently based on the sum of its money? Poor corporations have no more pull in government than poor unions, associations, or people.
I would suggest that as a fault of government, not in the relative well being of the association. Which takes me back to my earlier point.
I would suggest that as a fault of government, not in the relative well being of the association. Which takes me back to my earlier point.
But money is what is controls government. I suppose you can put government at fault, but if the government's intention is to run things as an oligarchy (plutocracy, corporatocracy, whatever you want to call it), what are they at fault for?
ApatheticNoMore
6-11-12, 1:27pm
how much outside control do you want over your life? Just enough to provide essential services, or more than enough to keep you at someone else's mercy? Also, if you choose 'more than enough' do you want to choose which areas you abdicate responsibility for or will you settle for the 'carte blanche' variety?
If ACTUAL experiments with government in the real world are any indication of anything, there is a difference between the welfare state and Hitler's fascism, a difference between the welfare state and Stalin's Russia. The rest of the world has it's problems, but they aren't necessarily internal fascism (although Canada and the UK would be next in line). The U.S. OTOH I fear is heading STRAIGHT toward fascism. And all the corporations won't be obstacles, they'll be part and parcel. And all the wealth inequality won't be an obstacle, in fact enough wealth inequality (beyond a certain point) all but requires a repressive state. (Clearly we can assume at the extreme - if masses of people were starving in the street and yet the wealthy were having a fine time, that force would be needed to keep down revolution. It's not there yet, oh it's definitely not there yet economically in this country - why economics are not my prime concern now. But the repressive aparatus is clearly there to react to anyone who resists their fate too much).
I prefer limiting the control outside forces have over me. You may feel differently?
outside forces will have control, it's just a question of which ones, and degree, yes indeed and degree.
But money is what is controls government. I suppose you can put government at fault, but if the government's intention is to run things as an oligarchy (plutocracy, corporatocracy, whatever you want to call it), what are they at fault for?
For overstepping their intended reach. Which they have in the past, and continue now to do.
Some of us appear to be in favor of it, some of us are not. Which side will prevail?
If those who want the government to overstep it's bounds in the hope of receiving something of value have their way, one of the un-intended consequences will most certainly be the fascisim ApatheticNoMore speaks of. The big picture is simply lost when we're focused on our immediate desires.
Still hoping for a Ron Paul win?
As a sidebar:
I recently attended my State's Republican convention, as a delegate from my county. A delegate for...Ron Paul.
At the convention, I was on the official Ron Paul state slate for delegates for the national convention.
I observed some disturbing, yet not unexpected things.
- The mainstream Republican machine bent over backwards to manipulate rules to prevent as much speech and access to process from the Ron Paul folks as they could manage. The entire management of the convention was deliberately manipulated and staged to marginalize the ~40% or so of the people who were there for Ron Paul. The delegate team from entire counties in this state were made up of Ron Paul supporters, he is not a fringe candidate here.
- Attempts to put a few simple things into the state-level platform to recruit the support of the Paulites, things having to do with civil liberties, were rejected out-of-hand by the Romney forces.
- Attempts to unify the Romney/Paul factions were simply crushed out of hand by Team Romney. They didn't want to even hear the Paulites' issues, or give them any part in the discussion. They had the force to simply dictate, and they did so. As a consensus kinda guy, who believes everyone has a piece of the truth to share, this saddened me.
- The power of The Orthodox Political Machine, and Lots of Money were amazingly evident. At either end of each row of delegate seats on the main convention floor were orange-shirted, orange-hat wearing Romney team leaders (very eerie...), with signs in their hands to indicate YES or NO votes, and radio communication between each other. Whenever the convention was moving towards a vote, they'd all stand at once and hold up their signs, to indicate how their army should vote. It was very well organized, and very well funded.
- I attended some of the Ron Paul organizing sessions, and some of the Romney ones. It was like watching Cub Scouts plan a camping trip vs. watching the Allied Forces planning Normandy.
I am convinced at this point that the whole grass-roots, convention/delegate process is simply meant to distract, decoy, and delay interested citizens, while established political parties with many decades of organizing experience steal the show, time after time.
It sickened me.
If you believe that money controls government because superior financial resources can purchase enough advertising to secure a voting majority, doesn’t that require you to believe that we are mindless automatons waiting to be programmed by television? And if that’s the case, doesn’t it follow that the best we can hope for is to receive our programming from a more compassionate elite?
For overstepping their intended reach. Which they have in the past, and continue now to do.
They all do - the end result of any government is oligarchy. Either by the consent of the governed (what we currently pass off as "democracy") - or not (fascism, totalitarianism, the current situation in Syria).
If you believe that money controls government because superior financial resources can purchase enough advertising to secure a voting majority, doesn’t that require you to believe that we are mindless automatons waiting to be programmed by television? And if that’s the case, doesn’t it follow that the best we can hope for is to receive our programming from a more compassionate elite?
Not at all - the people benefitting off that system + the ones swayed just has to be more than 50%. And given the move in some places to throw people off voting roles, I think they're worried about that 50+%
And a large amount are not mindless automatons -they're being presented distorted realities, and mostly have very little access to what is actually going on and what could be done.
ApatheticNoMore
6-11-12, 2:38pm
And a large amount are not mindless automatons -they're being presented distorted realities, and mostly have very little access to what is actually going on and what could be done.
+100 Maybe we're just running into resource limits? Like how many people have masses of time to devote to learning about politics? But what if even being somewhat informed is a large time commitment? Then being automatons or not really has nothing to do with it one way or other.
ApatheticNoMore
6-11-12, 2:39pm
Thanks for the inside information bae.
They all do - the end result of any government is oligarchy. Either by the consent of the governed (what we currently pass off as "democracy") - or not (fascism, totalitarianism, the current situation in Syria).
That's an interesting observation. Luckily, our founders foresaw that tendancy and intentionally created a Republic rather than a Democracy (which historically crushes itself under it's own weight). Under the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy", any democracy is actually an oligarchy.
That's why I'm a fan of founding principles.
Not at all - the people benefitting off that system + the ones swayed just has to be more than 50%. And given the move in some places to throw people off voting roles, I think they're worried about that 50+%
And a large amount are not mindless automatons -they're being presented distorted realities, and mostly have very little access to what is actually going on and what could be done.
If that's the case, how do we determine whose reality is distorted and who has access to "what is actually going on"? How do we introduce a higher level of empiricism into the debate? Who can we trust to tell us "what could be done"?
They all do - the end result of any government is oligarchy. Either by the consent of the governed (what we currently pass off as "democracy") - or not (fascism, totalitarianism, the current situation in Syria).
There are some governments that operate by consensus.
+100 Maybe we're just running into resource limits? Like how many people have masses of time to devote to learning about politics? But what if even being somewhat informed is a large time commitment? Then being automatons or not really has nothing to do with it one way or other.
If it's just a matter of bandwidth, how do you solve the problem? Establish a Ministry of Truth to filter out all that distorted reality (was it Marx who warned against false consciousness?) so voters can apply their limited capabilities more effectively?
If it's just a matter of bandwidth, how do you solve the problem? Establish a Ministry of Truth to filter out all that distorted reality (was it Marx who warned against false consciousness?) so voters can apply their limited capabilities more effectively?
Think about issues of domain sizing.
My county of 15,000 people has immense trouble with the citizens being able to absorb and properly comment upon a whole wave of new land use/environmental regulations we are in the process of adopting. Even though we have a very involved and educated citizenry, the size of the material is so immense, and the legislation so dense, and the process so long and cumbersome that it is difficult for a normal citizen with a normal job to participate in any meaningful sense.
I am the head of the commission hearing the legislation and taking public testimony and trying to recraft it to meet the needs of the citizens and the requirements of the law, and I spend, outside of meetings, perhaps 25 hours a week doing prep work. And I have a personal team of advisors I can call upon to assist me with the legal and scientific issues.
So even at the county level, it is difficult.
At the state level, it is a horror show, and when you get to regional or national politics, I don't see how it functions at all.
I think small local governments are the only ones that have a real chance of being remotely responsive to the citizens.
I also think people need to rethink their ideas of proper time scales for policy development and implementation. Even locally, when we rush through legislation or policy to meet some arbitrary deadline, we generally end up with a poor quality product that does not honor the desires of the citizens, contains major defects, results in difficulties in implementation, and typically produces lawsuits and angry citizens.
There needs to be a more deliberatively, long-term approach taken, instead of political posturing and leaping to solve the problem-of-the-hour with A New Bill, NOW!
[QUOTE=bae;85503]I think small local governments are the only ones that have a real chance of being remotely responsive to the citizens.
[QUOTE]
I think you’re right, and I think the people who designed our political operating system felt the same way. Most decisions made by government are best made at the lowest level possible. We have only to look to the old Soviet Union to see the result of taking central planning to an extreme. I have spent most of my career in local government, and have nothing but admiration for the people willing to run for local offices or serve on boards and commissions. I don’t think the average citizen has any idea of the level of the inconvenience and abuse these people endure for the common good.
If that's the case, how do we determine whose reality is distorted and who has access to "what is actually going on"? How do we introduce a higher level of empiricism into the debate? Who can we trust to tell us "what could be done"?
Good questions - and ones I don't have answers to.
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." Albert Einstein
My county of 15,000 people has immense trouble with the citizens being able to absorb and properly comment upon a whole wave of new land use/environmental regulations we are in the process of adopting. Even though we have a very involved and educated citizenry, the size of the material is so immense, and the legislation so dense, and the process so long and cumbersome that it is difficult for a normal citizen with a normal job to participate in any meaningful sense.
Unfortunately I don't think your experience is unique in this regard, bae. Two thoughts strike me whenever this situation comes up, First, with a relatively small base to serve and, in my experience anyway, a base that is rather tight knit, how does local legislation even get to the point of being so cumbersome? Around here the commissioners get updates at every meeting on projects like this. Maybe that really is a case of the frog in the pot. Second, writing anything that involved is extremely labor intensive. Who is it that has either the time or the resources combined with the motivation to produce such tomes? If it is a County or District Attorney and/or their staff (as it is here) doing the leg work then why would a board of commissioners ever authorize such an expenditure when most jurisdictions are begging for funds?
Gregg -
Picture a state that has its politics and policy dominated by 2-3 very urban counties, out of the 39 counties in the whole state. And picture a state that has many very-well funded and active departments, such as Ecology and Health, that want to see "progress".
My small rural county is buried under under-fundated mandates coming from the state. We do not have the army of professional planners, or the tax base, to support us in trying to comply with state regulations, regulations written with areas of much higher population density and human impact on the landscape in mind, regulations that often outlaw our very lifestyle and land development patterns.
Further, consider the army of well-funded, well-staffed state and national-level lobbying and policy organizations that are happy to help the state craft even thicker regulations, and happy to take my county to court when they don't like what we come up with. They are also happy to provide our county some poison-grants to write the stuff.
gimmethesimplelife
6-12-12, 1:13am
Peggy, histrionics aside, how much outside control do you want over your life? Just enough to provide essential services, or more than enough to keep you at someone else's mercy?
Also, if you choose 'more than enough' do you want to choose which areas you abdicate responsibility for or will you settle for the 'carte blanche' variety?
I prefer limiting the control outside forces have over me. You may feel differently?Alan, I wish you could meet my mother. She is from Austria, and immigrated to the US in 1965 and took the citizenship in the US in 1969. For many years now she has been kicking herself for doing this.....Since she left Austria, it has become a very well to do high tax kind of country where you pay a great deal to live there but you get a very high quality of life in return for it. She would gladly sell her soul to be back there and give up control as you put it to have a better quality of life than she can here. You may say, fine, go back - unfortunately when she accepted US citizenship, Austria took it's citizenship away. She kicks herself this day fo not just getting the green card and going no further.....Rob
Alan, I wish you could meet my mother. She is from Austria, and immigrated to the US in 1965 and took the citizenship in the US in 1969. For many years now she has been kicking herself for doing this.....Since she left Austria, it has become a very well to do high tax kind of country where you pay a great deal to live there but you get a very high quality of life in return for it. She would gladly sell her soul to be back there and give up control as you put it to have a better quality of life than she can here. You may say, fine, go back - unfortunately when she accepted US citizenship, Austria took it's citizenship away. She kicks herself this day fo not just getting the green card and going no further.....Rob
Rob, I'm sorry to hear of your mother's misery, but wonder if it is indicative of the feelings of all immigrants?
I wonder because over the last couple hundred years, the United States has been the most immigrated to country in the world. There was a reason for that. Mostly, because the United States offered opportunity that may have been lacking in some other countries. An opportunity to advance beyond the class structures imposed in other parts of the world, an opportunity to be free of civil oppression or religious dogma, an opportunity to realize their full potential, unfettered by governmental intrusion.
Those people have historically been the foundation of a thriving country, building economies, creating new opportunities and generating wealth for everyone. But, maybe we don't need them anymore. Government is taking over the role of innovators, builders and creators. It decides how our economy works, where growth is allowed and where it is not and then takes care of people rather than forcing them to take care of themselves. Maybe ours doesn't do it as well as Austria's does, but perhaps your mother just needs to give it a little more time. I'm sure we'll catch up eventually.
Gregg -
Picture a state that has its politics and policy dominated by 2-3 very urban counties, out of the 39 counties in the whole state. And picture a state that has many very-well funded and active departments, such as Ecology and Health, that want to see "progress".
My small rural county is buried under under-fundated mandates coming from the state. We do not have the army of professional planners, or the tax base, to support us in trying to comply with state regulations, regulations written with areas of much higher population density and human impact on the landscape in mind, regulations that often outlaw our very lifestyle and land development patterns.
Further, consider the army of well-funded, well-staffed state and national-level lobbying and policy organizations that are happy to help the state craft even thicker regulations, and happy to take my county to court when they don't like what we come up with. They are also happy to provide our county some poison-grants to write the stuff.
Makes perfect sense (how it happens, that is) and I'm afraid similar situations are playing out in many states. Western states are, I think, particularly prone to this given the fact that many have only one or two cities of any real size and very sparse populations beyond that. And of course the prevalence of natural resources combined with the big views and a few spotted owls make it ground zero for friction between groups with different ideas regarding stewardship of the land.
Our situation in Nebraska is somewhat similar to yours. We have 93 counties, but only two urban areas. 1.8 million folks in the whole state and 1.2 million in those two areas (and 900,000 of those are in one metro area, Omaha). We escape a lot of the intense scrutiny of the environmental lobbyists I think because we just blend into all the other fly over states. We're also somewhat lucky, in a left handed kind of way, because our economy is still so heavily biased toward agriculture. There aren't that many of us in the "rest of the state", but many who are wield a lot of influence just because of their contribution to the state GDP. Omaha seems to tout itself as the center of the Nebraska universe and the folks in elbow room country couldn't care less as long as it doesn't cost them money. We actually have surprisingly little friction between urban and rural areas when it comes to policy...for now.
Peggy, histrionics aside, how much outside control do you want over your life? Just enough to provide essential services, or more than enough to keep you at someone else's mercy?
Also, if you choose 'more than enough' do you want to choose which areas you abdicate responsibility for or will you settle for the 'carte blanche' variety?
I prefer limiting the control outside forces have over me. You may feel differently?
Alan, histrionics aside, how do you see the government controlling your life? How invested are you in the big bad evil government meme the right trots out reliably every voting opportunity? Do you really believe that the government offering services we asked for and pay for is somehow controlling? Do you belong to a food co-op? Are they controlling your food?
The government is like a giant co-op. We the people asked them/us to offer certain services and said we will pay into this co-op in order to provide this service to everyone. Yes, the service needs to be constantly tended and monitored and reworked, but that doesn't make the co-op evil. The government/co-op is a tool, and seeing it, or treating it as some separate evil entity to do battle with makes about as much sense as going to war with your wrench because it isn't a hammer. Sure it gives you effective bumper stickers and whips everyone up into a voting frenzy, but doesn't really accomplish anything does it.
Saying the government is a big bad evil controlling enemy is one of those things people say (typically on Fox over and over) but doesn't really mean anything because they can't really give us any concrete examples of this evil controlling. For every regulation there were plenty of people calling for it, or maybe just a few wealthy individuals calling for it, and of course, money is speech. Most regulation/laws don't come out of a vacuum. There was a reason for it.
Your controlling regulation just might be my benefit because I don't have the time to inspect all meat producers, i can't inspect egg and milk producers, and I don't know squat about cars and wouldn't know if the gas tank was dangerously produced and positioned or not. And this goes for most things. I don't know about everything, but I do know that industry will not regulate itself. It simply won't. Look at the big banks on Wall Street and you can see that. And that's just money. What about our food? Our water? Our baby formula? No, these things aren't covered in the constitution, but they are needed and wanted. As is SS, and medicare, and unemployment, and a host of other things, including basic health care for everyone.
These things aren't 'controlling' our lives. We asked for them, every one of them, and they make our lives better.
I have to tell you, although i seldom agree with bae, at least he is in there trying to work with the 'government tools' he has, and I can admire that. He IS government, and I doubt he sees himself as big bad evil.
Our government is not the enemy, politics is. You think the republicans want to reduce government and regulations? They just want to get in there so they can put in their own regulations. This is a big country. Don't' look at the politician/party, look at the purpose and actions and vote for what does the most good for the most people, all Americans.
Peggy you're missing the point. Let's make it simple.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson
It's just a matter of time.
Makes perfect sense (how it happens, that is) and I'm afraid similar situations are playing out in many states. Western states are, I think, particularly prone to this given the fact that many have only one or two cities of any real size and very sparse populations beyond that. And of course the prevalence of natural resources combined with the big views and a few spotted owls make it ground zero for friction between groups with different ideas regarding stewardship of the land.
Our situation in Nebraska is somewhat similar to yours. We have 93 counties, but only two urban areas. 1.8 million folks in the whole state and 1.2 million in those two areas (and 900,000 of those are in one metro area, Omaha). We escape a lot of the intense scrutiny of the environmental lobbyists I think because we just blend into all the other fly over states. We're also somewhat lucky, in a left handed kind of way, because our economy is still so heavily biased toward agriculture. There aren't that many of us in the "rest of the state", but many who are wield a lot of influence just because of their contribution to the state GDP. Omaha seems to tout itself as the center of the Nebraska universe and the folks in elbow room country couldn't care less as long as it doesn't cost them money. We actually have surprisingly little friction between urban and rural areas when it comes to policy...for now.
As goes your state, so goes the nation. This is why people are more than a little worried about the disappearance of the middle class which used to be a strong political and economic force. When all the wealth is concentrated into just a few hands, like the political 'wealth' of your state is in population areas, all regulations/laws/power is written for these few people. Money is power (and speech, apparently) and the vast majority of Americans are losing the ability to speak.
gimmethesimplelife
6-12-12, 10:32am
Rob, I'm sorry to hear of your mother's misery, but wonder if it is indicative of the feelings of all immigrants?
I wonder because over the last couple hundred years, the United States has been the most immigrated to country in the world. There was a reason for that. Mostly, because the United States offered opportunity that may have been lacking in some other countries. An opportunity to advance beyond the class structures imposed in other parts of the world, an opportunity to be free of civil oppression or religious dogma, an opportunity to realize their full potential, unfettered by governmental intrusion.
Those people have historically been the foundation of a thriving country, building economies, creating new opportunities and generating wealth for everyone. But, maybe we don't need them anymore. Government is taking over the role of innovators, builders and creators. It decides how our economy works, where growth is allowed and where it is not and then takes care of people rather than forcing them to take care of themselves. Maybe ours doesn't do it as well as Austria's does, but perhaps your mother just needs to give it a little more time. I'm sure we'll catch up eventually.Alan, I'll give you this - there are peope who do immigrate here and adjust and adapt and some scattered few become quite successful. This much is true. There are also those for whom America does not work that go back to their home country - there are those for whom the soulless ubercompetitiveness of it is just not worth it, for whom the lack of security and the lack of community don't justify the consumer culture and it's conveniences.....If you will google, you will find many stories of immigrants who have went home as America just did not work for them. I say if it works for you - GREAT - I mean this sincerely too, I really do. All I am saying is that there are those for whom the American way just does not work. What I have seen cited most often is as I have said, the lack of security, the turbo charged competitiveness, the lack of meaning for many and the lack of human connections.....However, I have met some for whom this works, I will give you that. So my point is, if it works for you fine, but it doesn't work for everyone, this is not one size fits all (this is something about the US I have problems with - what I see as a one size fits all mentality. Also my perception that how something really is often does not matter, what matters is how something looks or appears to be. These particular issues I have not run across with others.) Rob
Peggy you're missing the point. Let's make it simple.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson
It's just a matter of time.
We've been there for a long time already. It's just the "you" receiving are the ones driving government and the "you" getting taken are the rest of us.
Peggy you're missing the point. Let's make it simple.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson
It's just a matter of time.
No it's not Alan. It's not a matter of time, unless you vote for people who want to funnel all the nations wealth upwards. Then your masters are a few ultra wealthy. The republican party is already there. For someone who fears this slippery slope, you sure support some 'controlling' ideas. i.e. Citizens United
Perhaps you should take some time and do some traveling around the world. First visit a few third world countries where the government doesn't control (help/assist/aid) their people and it's every man for himself, then go to Denmark, or Sweden, or most European countries where I'll tell you the people don't feel 'controlled' and are quite happy. Happier than us overall.
To be fair peggy I need to clarify. The concentration of wealth, political and otherwise, IS in the hands of the middle class here. The vast majority of land in my state is in the hands of farmers and ranchers. Oh sure, a few are rich just like in any other type of business you care to name, but their political clout comes from the group of them, not just from a few high powered individuals. The cattleman's association here, for example, is very influential and has thousands of members. Almost all of those members are solidly middle class, hard working people who tend to elect their representatives based on how much common sense they have. Maybe we're just the land that time forgot, but that's how it works around here and most of us would like to keep it that way.
...then go to Denmark, or Sweden, or most European countries where I'll tell you the people don't feel 'controlled' and are quite happy. Happier than us overall.
Is it possible to find such a country that did not achieve their high level of satisfaction due, at least in part, to subsidies from the US? Northern Europe can breathe easy knowing the US firepower stands solidly behind NATO and the US dollars support it up front. I wonder if they would feel so content if that situation were to change? It is, afterall, quite a luxury to not have to worry about threats from their neighbors thanks to a security system that is virtually free.
ApatheticNoMore
6-12-12, 11:50am
We've been there for a long time already. It's just the "you" receiving are the ones driving government and the "you" getting taken are the rest of us.
The decline of the middle class itself could be seen as government taking it all away. The horrible has already happened :). They knew what their trade policies would do. I mean really look at the trade policies and who is NOT powerful in them: labor in any sense and not just organized labor. And who is: intellectual property is protected heavily in trade agreements (it didn't have to be, they could just let that go laissez faire as well), and although this IP protection may benefit a few select individuals, this mostly does a lot to support corporate power. And again I'm not anti international trade as a blanket thing, although what we have is managed trade not free trade, but anyway I think trade may have benefits also. I'm just saying, they knew what they were doing. And I'm not absolutely anti-IP either, although many people are. But I can sure as heck see how power and wealth is very definitely enforced through laws like trade laws.
My relatives came to this country partly to avoid an absolutely stratified class system, and they escaped it! And THEN .... they watched this country becoming one of the most stratified class system in the world in the course of their lifetime, they fought it like heck (the old socialists, oh and they'd use that term as a self-description :)). And they were about as sucessful as a middle class person who works for a living can be (ie that sucess that is due just to extensive college education (near free back in those days), solid middle class labor for decades and decades, hard core saving, and conservative and wise investing with the savings accumulated purely by labor). Left inheritence to half a dozen grandkids. Oh gosh the stern stern work ethic of such people - refused to retire years after they could have - they believed in the morality of labor for it's own sake - no wonder they were socialists, labor and social responsibility, all that they believed, never pleasure.
Is it possible to find such a country that did not achieve their high level of satisfaction due, at least in part, to subsidies from the US? Northern Europe can breathe easy knowing the US firepower stands solidly behind NATO and the US dollars support it up front. I wonder if they would feel so content if that situation were to change? It is, afterall, quite a luxury to not have to worry about threats from their neighbors thanks to a security system that is virtually free.
Why yes, I'm sure that has something to do with it, but it still points up the fact that people are more happy when they have the protections and tools of the government behind them. Whatever the analysis is, these are not every man for himself countries.
You are mistaken about European security systems, a common mistake. These people aren't just lying on the couch eating bon bons and watching Oprah! NATO protects everyone, more politically now days than anything, and really it's in place more for us than anyone else. These folks don't fear their neighbors because largely their neighbors aren't interested in conquering them. And as we've seen in the recent past, the enemy more often than not comes from within, and we don't stand armies to protect these folks from themselves. Having bases in these countries was/is mutually beneficial to both countries, although the benefits to us have changed with modern warfare equipment and theatre. And we are working to close those bases, but these are our friends and we can no more simply close a base than we can in a community in the states. We must ease our way out without harm to us, them or our relationship, and I do believe that has started. (see bae's very realistic post above about the speed and difficulty in doing something even in a very small town. Now put that on a global scale)
And don't forget, after WW2 WE put restrictions on these countries as to standing armies and such and in return said we won't let you get attacked. You see, foreign policy is so much more complicated and so much more nuanced than most people can even imagine, which is why I run at the speed of light away from any politician who 'makes it simple for the simple man'.
But. back to the original idea, yes, these countries are successful and these people would laugh if you tried to convince them that they in fact are being controlled by their governments because they have universal health care. It's such a convoluted idea that it just blows me away that anyone actually swallows it. Because we use our government to bring the opportunity of peace, prosperity and affordable health care to all, that is somehow evil and controlling and we should all be miserable?
Yeah, and I got some swamp land in Holland to sell you!;)
To be fair peggy I need to clarify. The concentration of wealth, political and otherwise, IS in the hands of the middle class here. The vast majority of land in my state is in the hands of farmers and ranchers. Oh sure, a few are rich just like in any other type of business you care to name, but their political clout comes from the group of them, not just from a few high powered individuals. The cattleman's association here, for example, is very influential and has thousands of members. Almost all of those members are solidly middle class, hard working people who tend to elect their representatives based on how much common sense they have. Maybe we're just the land that time forgot, but that's how it works around here and most of us would like to keep it that way.
I guess i should clarify as well. I was just trying to make an analogy with the concentrations of wealth/political/voting power/population. You know, this is to this as that is to that. But I was never very good at analogy, and failed miserably in that portion of the test every time. :0!
so, never mind. I've lost it now.:|(
...but it still points up the fact that people are more happy when they have the protections and tools of the government behind them.
I think people are happier when they are free from oppression of any kind. Is that possible with a strong government in place? I think it is, I'm just not sure that is the direction we're heading.
NATO protects everyone, more politically now days than anything, and really it's in place more for us than anyone else.
NATO is a military organization. Membership is a net loser for the US. IMO getting out of it would be one of the most sensible things the US could do.
These folks don't fear their neighbors because largely their neighbors aren't interested in conquering them.
Those folks don't fear their neighbors because we are standing behind them with a great big stick. The neighbor's interest has a long history of changing if no one is looking.
And we are working to close those bases, but these are our friends and we can no more simply close a base than we can in a community in the states.
Friends, yea, sure. If the choice ever comes down to closing a base in Denmark or a base in Mississippi I say we take a vote right here in the good ole' USA. Bet I know how it would end up.
I don't know peggy, sometimes its like we live on different planets. The conclusions you reach with basically the same input are 180* from mine. It would be fun someday to sit on the dock with that margarita and try to really figure out why that is. I'm sure its not because I watch FOX, because I don't. And I'm pretty sure you read more than just People Magazine and the huff & puff report. Under ordinary circumstances it would be kind of funny, but I'm worried that our country won't be able to stand the pressure of this divide forever.
I think people are happier when they are free from oppression of any kind. Is that possible with a strong government in place? I think it is, I'm just not sure that is the direction we're heading.
NATO is a military organization. Membership is a net loser for the US. IMO getting out of it would be one of the most sensible things the US could do.
Those folks don't fear their neighbors because we are standing behind them with a great big stick. The neighbor's interest has a long history of changing if no one is looking.
Friends, yea, sure. If the choice ever comes down to closing a base in Denmark or a base in Mississippi I say we take a vote right here in the good ole' USA. Bet I know how it would end up.
I don't know peggy, sometimes its like we live on different planets. The conclusions you reach with basically the same input are 180* from mine. It would be fun someday to sit on the dock with that margarita and try to really figure out why that is. I'm sure its not because I watch FOX, because I don't. And I'm pretty sure you read more than just People Magazine and the huff & puff report. Under ordinary circumstances it would be kind of funny, but I'm worried that our country won't be able to stand the pressure of this divide forever.
Gregg, if you and i could sit on the dock with a margarita and discuss the politics of the nation, even if we disagree, then that is the kind of 'divide' our country can in fact stand. And to be truthful, it's the kind of 'divide' that keeps our country strong, and the kind I would welcome. I love a good political discussion, one of real substance, where the end goals are pretty much the same, but it's just in the works that we disagree. That is the kind of discussion our country was born on (most don't seem to realize the founding fathers had deep divides and very heated discussions, but compromised to form the constitution). And I think we need that sort of 'divide' to keep our country strong and honest.
But if we just stand on either side of the pond and yell at each other, that doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the country. That is the wrong kind of divide, and it started I think with Newt and his lot. He took the discussion out of the policy and made it personal, and we didn't call him on it. That's our fault. It was a tactic of diversion to play on peoples emotions and it worked for him so it grew to the point where the political ads don't point out policy differences, but say the opponent hates America and wants to destroy our way of life and really he isn't one of us and on and on. People listen to and cheer on Rush Limbaugh and Glen beck, which spawned Kieth Olbermann and a few others on the left, but really the left will never learn to take it to the fine brainwashing heights the right has. That is destructive to the nation and the conversation.
Then you get the tea party types who vow to never ever compromise, ever, and these, I fear, are the last nails in the coffin of our country as we know it.
I'd like to sugar coat it and say we are all equally guilty, yada yada yada...but the truth is, we aren't . Studies have shown that democrats/liberals have not moved significantly from where they have been for the last 30 years, but the right has moved so far to the right that even moderates in their own party are starting to question the monster they have created. They used the rabid tea party types and peasants with pitch forks to strong arm their way forward, but now find themselves tossed aside by this no compromise take no prisoners group. This is what Our country will not stand, and what will ultimately destroy the good that we have.
I fear people like you and I, who would enjoy sitting on the dock and discussing these mutual problems facing our country, are the exception rather than the rule. I don't know how bad it has to get before people wake up and demand that the first consideration in a good politician is one who will gladly work with the other side to find a compromise, but i think it's going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets better, if it gets better. My husband firmly believes we are headed for civil war, but i certainly hope he is wrong.
But, Gregg, there is always a cold margarita waiting for you on the dock, and a fishing pole too cause we simply must get rid of some of these catfish!:)
I do think we agree more than we disagree.
iris lily
6-12-12, 10:29pm
Then you get the tea party types who vow to never ever compromise, ever,...
Compromising of fiscal solvancy is stupid. Look where that has got us over the past 30 years.
The hard line of: less government spending, let's balance that mthfkn budget NOW! is a reasonable response to an unreasonable Congress.
Compromising of fiscal solvancy is stupid. Look where that has got us over the past 30 years.
The hard line of: less government spending, let's balance that mthfkn budget NOW! is a reasonable response to an unreasonable Congress.
And when President Obama offered them a deal of 10 to 1, 10 cuts to one increase, and they still refused? Is that how to get things done in this country? Is that a reasonable group of people, or petulant 5 year olds who stomp their feet and refuse to get in the car? Who is being unreasonable here?
Having just lived through the past year and a half here in Wisconsin, we have seen one party’s Senate contingent flee the state to avoid a vote they knew they would lose. We saw teachers call in sick to attend protests. We have seen doctors write bogus sick notes on a mass production basis. We have seen death threats made against opposing legislators. One politician had beer poured on his head, another had obscenities shrieked at him in the presence of his children. We have seen millions wasted on a recall election. And when it finally ended and the loser conceded, an angry activist slapped him in the face.
I can’t imagine what kind of closed system of contempt and self-regard a viewpoint would need to be trapped in to view this as the behavior of the more reasonable party.
ApatheticNoMore
6-13-12, 2:44pm
I don't think that term: "reasonable", means what you think it means.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.