Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
Big Government - Authoritarian / Re: My Problem with Universal Health Care
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on September 07, 2009, 11:55:59 pm »
I don't agree with your assertion that to want people to have access to healthiness is to believe it to be a right. I have always drawn the distinction between rights and publicly provided services.

A right is something you have, that a dictator can take away from you. Such as your life, your property, your freedom, your ability to speak, ect. That is the basis of the bill of rights in this country. To protect people from other people, and from the government. Not to protect people from themselves or from nature. This I believe is primarily their responsibility.

I also see a fundamental flaw with your proposed system. If you cut compensation to doctors, less will aspire to be doctors. The fewer doctors there are, the longer the wait time will be to see them. This is why you can't fix prices. The same holds true of any commodity. if you say grain can only be a certain price, then people will stop growing it and chose another more profitable crop.

Managing the economy in this way will only guarantee that for every sector you regulate, others will expand, and that one will contract. This will create shortages in some places, and unneeded surpluses in others.

For your system to work, you would need to be able to force a certain number of people to become doctors. And that would require radically changing our system of government.

Really, to manage the economy, you would need to manage the entire economy, and that would mean every poor person would cease to be "unlucky" and become a victim of the state. A government that runs the economy, is responsible for the effects of the economy.

Food, shelter, and other necessities have always been part of the capitalists system ever since we attained a division of labor such that certain people grew crops and others sold them.

The issue is simply making sure that enough independent entities offer the good or service so that there can be competition among them to win customers. This also requires savvy customers who understand what they are buying and how much it ought to be worth.

Now I am not suggesting capitalism is perfect, capitalism is the worst possible economic system except for all the ones that have been tried in its place.
72
The Public Forum / Re: Bird-Hate Rampant, Genocide Fails, Shakespere at Fault
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on September 07, 2009, 11:38:41 pm »
Alia, there is only once species of hominid on this earth.
73
Big Government - Authoritarian / Re: My Problem with Universal Health Care
« Last post by Alia on September 07, 2009, 08:41:02 pm »
To speak of deserving something, as you just have, is admitting that it is a right. You do not want to see poeple die because they cannot pay, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

Health care costs are ballooning out of control for all the reasons the Republicans say. However there is a very nasty reason nobody ever mentions. Medicine does not belong within capitalism because it's not capitalistic. Medicine is either needed to live, or it is not. Even after you strip away the government scamming hospitals out of billions by forcing them to accept everyone in the emergency room, even if they cannot pay, even after you reform the insurance system, medicine will always be left with an ugly, anti-capitalistic flaw: You cannot refuse it if you need it.

Let me elaborate. If ten people suffer amoung five doctors, and are each paying the doctors $10 a week to treat their condition, the doctors make $50 a week each. However, if the doctors increase the cost of treatment to $20, even if two of the ten can no longer pay, the doctors each have four clients left and make $80 a week, and for less work, too. If they increase the cost to $40, and another two cannot pay, they still each have three clients left and each recieve $120 a week. Taking this even further, the ideal situation is to charge exhorbitantly, let us say we make the cost of treatment $200 a week, and only the last two people can pay, leaving the doctors with minnimum work and maximum profit of $200 a week each, because no one who can pay will refuse. This is the ideal. If one of our two doctors lowered his prices back to $10 a week, he would recieve double the work he originally had and only $100 a week compared to $200 for just one client.

I believe in Socialism where Capitalism must fail, and here is an example. Whenever need works to the benefit of the trust and oversupply cannot counter it, I think intervention must come.

Food is another such commodity, and this will eventually be realised. Now, deliberate oversupply counters need. This is so farmer after farmer is put out of business because low prices do not allow him to compete with massive growers, and when all the skills are comfortably in the hands of a select few, a shortage will be engineered and prices will skyrocket. This is waiting in the wings, I assure you. People not on Welfare will die. The starving will roam the streets raiding peoples' homes. This is not Depression II, this is utter Catastrophe.

I believe in price fixing, but, only for necessities. Someone needs to see to it that providers of necessities make enough to live, even when there are a great many provders and harsh competition. This forestalls Catastrophe.

The way I see it government should probably step in on health care, but the problem needs to be faced from the bottom up. Firstly, medical school is too expensive. Government-run medical schools should admit students, and even pay them to live comfortably for high academic achievement, and enough to at least live even if they have a C-average. If they never graduate, they must repay their entire debt to Society. If they do graduate, they should be put to work as doctors, and paid a fair price for their hours rather than an exhorbitant one. The face of medicine should change; no longer harsh competition in which the brightest few with their eyes on money from the outset earn the right to stand beyond competition and drive up prices. Instead, a decent system where those genuinely willing to help can be doctors, paid a fair wage for a fair job. If people want the best, with no chance of error, they can pay for that. If they're sick and need help from an honest Joe for an honest price, then they can be helped.
74
The Public Forum / The Failure of Oversuccess
« Last post by Alia on September 07, 2009, 08:08:19 pm »
Unfortunately it looks like these ***slur deleted*** need to be taken out. They are going to put a strain on native [kinds] and could cause them to become endangered or extinct.

This is clearly why humans shouldn't move around to environments that can't handle them.

Very wise.

When you take a step outside Humanity, you realise we're just animals after all, with the same natures and patterns as these witless Birds. That was the pin in my heart's coffin really. I learnt to think like a Naturalist.

It is very obvious that these starlings are fitter and more successful than the native species they are outcrowding, harassing, and replacing. So shouldn't a Darwinist be on the side of the starling? No, an ecosystem must be considered as a whole, and whether it functions as a whole or not. One invasive species can destroy hundreds of native, harm the balance achieved over thousands of starling-free years, and puts the entire ecosystem, or society, at risk, ironically, through its oversuccess.

Oversuccess can be bad. It seems anti-Darwinistic and contradictory at first, but oversuccessful species strip resources at an unsustainable rate. I've dropped the metaphor and I'm only talking about animals now and species as a whole, but, I'm including Humans as a whole as an oversuccessful species. We have such an impact because our oversuccess leads to an unsustainable rate of population growth. When this happens, a species becomes a burden to its ecosystem and all the other species which naturally thrive there, sustainably. Gradually, the land gives out. First resources run slim, and the reasonably successful are affected before the oversuccessful. Some of these species outcrowded are ultimately keystone species, who just by their existence, sustain and play a vital role in every part of the ecosystem. When they are gone, they trigger a chain reaction, a mass extinction, and Nature is lucky if she can pick up the pieces and start over. I believe that climate change, meteors, and miscellaneous changes in abiotic environment play only an ancillary role in many mass extinctions. I believe oversuccess is probably always at least linked to the main cause and usually the red herring itself, the reason being that we are within a mass extinction at this very moment, and we are lucky enough to be able to observe the cause.

And it is us.
75
Big Government - Authoritarian / Re: My Problem with Universal Health Care
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on September 07, 2009, 07:14:16 am »
Depends on how you  define universal health-care. If you mean single payer or government control over health-care providers then probably no. I also don't believe health-care is a right.

However as an issue of national pride, and because I'm an altruist, I'd favor programs designed to ensure everyone who deserves coverage has access to it. As a practical matter a healthy population is an asset.

The issue is how does one go about this? I'd like health-care plans to be as individual, personal, and adaptable as possible with more choices, transparency, and managed at a level close to and accountable to the people under it.

My problem with the Obama plan and most of these plans is that they fit few or non of these parameters.
76
The Public Forum / Re: Bird-Hate Rampant, Genocide Fails, Shakespere at Fault
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on September 07, 2009, 07:08:30 am »
Unfortunately it looks like these birds need to be taken out. They are going to put a strain on native species and could cause them to become endangered or extinct.

This is clearly why humans shouldn't move around animals to environments that can't handle them.
77
The Public Forum / Bird-Hate Rampant, Genocide Fails, Shakespere at Fault
« Last post by Alia on September 07, 2009, 02:51:32 am »
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090906/ap_on_re_us/us_most_hated_bird
Quote
Shock and caw: Pesky starlings still overwhelm





SALT LAKE CITY – The next time the sky darkens with a flock of noisy unwelcome starlings, blame Shakespeare — or, better yet, a few of his strangest fans.

Had the Bard not mentioned the starling in the third scene of "Henry IV," arguably the most hated bird in North America might never have arrived. In the early 1890s, about 100 European starlings were released in New York City's Central Park by a group dedicated to bringing to America every bird ever mentioned by Shakespeare.

Today, it's more like Hitchcock.

Some 200 million shiny black European starlings crowd North America, from the cool climes of Alaska to the balmy reaches of Mexico's Baja peninsula. The enormous flocks endanger air travel, mob cattle operations, chase off native songbirds, roost on city blocks, leaving behind corrosive, foul-smelling droppings and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage each year.

And getting rid of them is near impossible.

Last year U.S. government agents poisoned, shot and trapped 1.7 million starlings, more than any other nuisance species, according to new figures, only to see them roaring back again.

"It's sort of like bailing the ocean with a thimble," said Richard Dolbeer, a retired Wildlife Services researcher in Sandusky, Ohio who spent years trying to figure out ways to keep starlings — which he calls "flying bullets" — and other birds from causing problems at airports. Federal aviation officials say they have caused $4 million in damage since 1990.

After the starlings' introduction, they quickly expanded west, taking advantage of vast tracts of forested land opening up to agriculture and human development, Dolbeer said. By the 1950s, starlings had reached California and nearly all parts in-between. Today, it's one of the most common birds in the U.S.

Their prodigious presence is no mystery. Starlings breed like crazy, eat almost anything, are highly mobile and operate in overwhelming numbers. They're also expert at nesting in protected nooks and making an intimidating statement as they swirl in vast clouds called "murmurations."

"They're great survivors and quite the biological machine," said Greg Butcher, director of bird conservation at the National Audubon Society.

They're also responsible for the most deadly bird strikes in aviation: a 1960 civilian crash in Boston that killed 62 and a 1996 military cargo plane crash that killed 34 in the Netherlands. Since then, there have been close calls, including a Boeing 747 that ran into a flock in Rome last fall. No one was killed but the badly damaged plane had a rough landing.

Those kinds of scenarios are why wildlife biologist Mike Smith has been tweaking a series of traps used at Salt Lake City International Airport, where there have been 19 reported starling strikes since 1990. The traps use dog food to attract a starling or two. Hundreds more soon follow, driven by their innate desire to flock with each other. He once caught 800 in a single day.

The most popular lethal tactic is a poison called DRC-1339, which is often sprinkled on french fries, a favorite starlings snack. Within a day or two, starlings keel over from organ failure.

No other state poisoned more starlings last year than Washington. Starlings there caused $9 million in damages to agricultural operations over five years. Nationwide, starlings cause $800 million in damage to agricultural operations each year, according to a Cornell University estimate.

At one feed lot, some 200,000 starlings gathered each day, lining fence tops, wires, water troughs and even perching on top of cows. They've learned to steal the most nutritious morsels from the cattle troughs and pose an ever-present threat of moving disease from one ranch to another, said Roger Woodruff, director of Wildlife Services in Washington.

Nearly 650,000 starlings were poisoned last year in the state, an all-time record, he said.

When killing's not an option, agents often turn to harassment campaigns.

In downtown Indianapolis, flocks as large as 40,000 show up around dusk in the winter to hang out, find food and keep warm. They quickly wear out their welcome with their noise and their mess. Crews are deployed nearly every night to scare them off with lasers, pyrotechnic explosions and noise devices with names like "screamers" and "bangers."

Like other urban areas, they've had some success shooing them out of downtown and onto undeveloped land, said Judy Loven, director of Wildlife Services in Indiana, but it's likely going to be an ongoing battle.

"They're pretty much wise to our ways and pass that information along," said Jeff Homan, a wildlife researcher in Bismarck, N.D., who's part of a team focusing on starlings and blackbirds.

It's unlikely those who engineered the starlings' release in Central Park — including its leader, New York drug manufacturer named Eugene Schieffelin — could have fully imagined the consequences of their experiment, said author Kim Todd, who wrote about the introduction in her 2001 book "Tinkering With Eden: A Natural History of Exotic Species in America."

"It's sad but true that we often only see a creature's beauty when it is out-of-reach or rare," Todd said in an e-mail. "I can't imagine that Schieffelin, who appreciated starlings on the page and in small groups, would have the same affection for them in their enormous, pesky flocks."
78
Big Government - Authoritarian / Re: My Problem with Universal Health Care
« Last post by Alia on September 07, 2009, 02:33:50 am »
That is actually a brilliant idea... I might have to steel steal that as my only current plan is to require them to lose the weight themselves to be eligible which is admittedly not a perfect solution.

I can't believe you'd push for universal health care at all. It really is more of a Socialist idea.
79
The Public Forum / Re: They say a picture is worth a thousand words....
« Last post by Alia on September 07, 2009, 02:27:48 am »
These people all seem to be counting on the Magic ***slur deleted*** to somehow get us out of the war. I hope none of them hold their breath. Besides, McCain served, so he has some small right to be a warmonger. Much more right than Obama has to throw away American lives protecting terrorists from justice. With Obama's anti-American, amry-crippling policies, he will extend the war and cost more American lives treating terrorists "fairly" than McCain probably ever would have, warmonger or no. I'm glad I didn't vote for either of them.

Even though I don't think McCain was actually crazy, I still think people who use the word "nutter" are somewhat endearing.

But... #2 for the win I suppose. He gets the gold star for most rational, with a more or less, push the pendulum further as it swings, to bring it back harder the way we want sort of philosophy.
80
The Public Forum / Re: What is wrong with America?
« Last post by Alia on September 07, 2009, 01:47:06 am »
I'm only enraged because we live in a world in which the innocent are saved from prosecution by having connections.

This is outrageous. The innocent should never be saved.

Plus, you should not spell the word store "S-T-O-O-R". If you weren't shot for that, I don't know what to tell you about the state of America. Fascism Lite just isn't good enough for me.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10