Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal
You can read it pretty much anywhere, but Clinton took Ohio and Texas meaning that the democratic primaries are far from over. Unlike the Dems, McCain has locked his nomination for the Republicans by breaking the 1,191 delegates necessary. So there it is. Talk amongst yourselves.
she left the state with fewer delegates.. I'm trying to understand what a "win" means in this race.
Now that McCain has clinched the nod, expect all those that would have voted for McCain 'when it mattered' to now vote for Clinton when possible. Clinton is by far the easier candidate to beat and everyone knows it. It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary.
We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.
That statement is only valid for the few rights that haven't already been annihilated by the current administration.
Which would leave one to assume that the situation can only get better, but that was also what we thought when approaching the 2004 presidential election. Yet somehow we were proven wrong.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
As much as I'd like to see a woman or a (excuse the wording) black man in the White House, because it'll do the world as a whole a lot of good, I really don't think the slagging match that the Democrats are having is doing them any favours. Showing Obama wearing a turban (I think it was a turban) and making racial slurs is not a good way to win votes at election time.
Summation 2
There's plenty of evidence that in both Texas and Ohio, Republicans are voting for Hillary in order to "bloody Obama" politically. Rush Limbaugh has been urging his listeners to do that for weeks. http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/04/mj030408switchweb.html Similar stories are coming in about Ohio. The political machine is starting to conspire against Obama from both sides. But I still believe that Obama will win the nomination because Hillary has a math problem. http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240 But the feeling of dread comes from the notion that even if she loses the delegate count, that she'll still be able to pull out a victory via her usual shenanigans. She's going to fight to have Michigan and Florida's delegates seated even though in Michigan for instance, Barack's name wasnt even on the ballot.
The nifty thing for Obama, is that he is far enough ahead in pledged delegates that he still doesn't have to go sharply negative. Notice the things he hasn't talked about. Tax returns? Bill's last minute pardons (against the advice of the Justice Department, but for people who paid consulting fees to Hillary's brothers)? Kazakhstan? Clinton library donors? Lincoln bedroom guest list? Norman Hsu? Trying to win the nomination without getting these matters in the mainstream media is a kindness to the Democratic Party that the superdelegates would be blind to ignore.
The only question left is Florida and Michigan. Particularly the latter. If she manages to seat her Michigan delegates and none for Obama (since he wasn't on the ballot), I will be disappointed if Detroit doesn't take to the streets.
"Which would leave one to assume that the situation can only get better..."
How do you come to that conclusion? Have you seen the same ads I have? "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" - "Healthcare for everyone". This can only translate into more of my labor going towards strangers.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
TFA: In the Texas primary, [Clinton] won with 51 pecent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Obama.
3% is winning the state? Remember that Democratic state delegates are divided up by vote percentages, unlike the Republican "winner take all" delegate process. So Clinton's win in Texas is fairly thin, and frankly a poor showing after all the money and campaigning she's spent lately in a state that was always considered an automatic win for her.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Well, Ron Paul SHOULD still be in at this point. That's not trolling.
There are a lot of Republicans who just WON'T vote for McCain. Ron should and will stay in the race, and those McCain haters are going to vote for him, just like they did for Huckabee. Hopefully they'll also learn something. The current election is always about the next one for the candidates who don't win. I think that inspite of what we know here, and the best efforts of many on this board, there are about 300 million citizens in the US who don't know anything more about Ron Paul's positions than that he is completely against the Iraq war. If the nation becomes better informed about the REAL cost of lowering interest rates and devaluing the dollar, things might actually change.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
The economy is tanking due to the Republicans. Whomever the next president will be is about to oversee the greatest collapse we've seen since the Great Depression, as the only thing shoring up our economy at the moment is over $600 billion of loaned capitol which is going to baloon to $2 trillion by years end at the current pace. If I were a strategist, I would throw the election, to let the Republicans take it, and watch as everything collapses around them.
Alternatively, put forth the strongest dream-team, a Regan/Bush 1980 style team. Idealist speechgiver as the main ticket, the strong and reasoned seasoned senate veteran in the VP chair. Push forward using the collapsing economy as your footprint. Forget the war, people don't think of war when they're worried about their jobs! It's the economy stupid!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
The media was playing it up as Clinton's "last chance", so naturally that will energize people who are emotionally involved with that candidate and get them out to vote... just like in New Hampshire, where women came out strong for their candidate.
Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that. If you look at the facts, Obama is a better speaker, more motivational, more liked overseas, less divisive. Obama has more experience in public service, he's made better decisions, and he's more likely to win against McCain. He's run a more organized and effective campaign. So given that he pretty much outclasses her in every way as a candidate, you have to ask yourself why people are voting for Clinton, and is it right.
Some people say that Obama is benefiting from being half-black by winning the black vote 10:1. I don't think that's really true, I think he'd be winning the other groups that much if not for the factors working against him. For instance, the Hispanic community has historically been at odds with African Americans. And whites and women, obviously, have a bias for a white woman. It seems to me that by merit he should be winning close to that ratio among most groups.
"The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States."
Unfortunately, the public is never going to get this through their thick skulls as long as they thing their candidate will set up a system whereby they are able to get things slightly cheaper at other people's expenses. Everyone thinks they'll cheat the system but they're only cheating themselves as long as they let the government have its fingers in the economy.
Referring to centrists like Hillary and Obama as Socialists indicates an intense and pervasive ignorance of all matters social and political. Socialism does not encourage private property or corporate participation, just for starters. You really should visit some places that embrace Socialism before you make pronouncements like that, but like most Americans staying fearfully within your own borders is as much as you can handle. With ignorance on this scale being commonplace it is amazing that we can do this well.
As opposed to the current system where the ER is often the first, last and only choice for the poor, resulting in increased medical bills that are unpaid and passed onto wealthier hospital patrons who do have insurance?
There are places that capitalism fails. Healthcare looks like it is one of them. Even if doctors could refuse treatment until after they were paid (what a dystopic thought!), the lack of access to healthcare would decrease the total health of the population, resulting in a population that is more prone to infectious diseases and epidemics.
PS: We have the ability to wipe out polio from the world relatively easily. That's due to government, not private practice footing the bill. We also have the ability to eradicate the MMR trio if we are willing to push for an international campaign to do so.
Wasn't it bad enough that her husband spent 8 years undercutting and selling-out the liberals in his own party? Must she now be a Brutus as well? IS Chelsea already planning how SHE is going to fuck us over too?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No one cares what you think. Seriously.
I think some do. Maybe not many, but in all honesty, let's look at the long term viability of my posting on slashdot:
1. People add me as their friend. This means they have some respect for my style of writing, even if they disagree with the content.
2. People email me often. My real name is up there, not a fake name or worse "Anonymous Coward." I appreciate that people connect me to my posts on slashdot, and when future customers Google me, they will get literally thousands of Slashdot posts pointing to my opinion. I even tell people to Google my name along with what they want to know about me, and Slashdot comes to the rescue, usually pulling up a few past posts over what I said. I profit from what I say here, as do those who learn from me (or help me learn from what I may have missed).
3. Slashdot provides a venue for alternative opinions, and not just a heads-or-tails situation. We have a fairly massive user base, but the content that comes out of the users is more varied than almost any other blog or forum. This means that we all learn from each other (or help each other learn). My posts are just a drop in the bucket, but they add something to this system of learning.
4. I am moderated generally high, but I am not a Karma whore. If you go through my mod history, you'll see that I am -1 about 1/2 the time as +5. That's fine with me, it helps me gauge "the market" of what people are interested in hearing, and what they're not. I no longer user the term "anarcho-capitalist" in my posts, because people didn't like my use of the term. I learned.
5. There are features that allow you to ignore me on the board completely. Make me a Foe, moderate foes to -5, and I'm gone from your screen. Easy as pie.
Let me tell you what's really sad, a (presumably) grown man like you who finds the need to repeatedly share the details of his life on a technology web board.
So I'll ask "GO THE FUCK AWAY". Will I receive?
Well, the first thing that you need to see is that Slashdot works for me as a community to bounce ideas off of. These ideas are either accepted fully by some, or denied fully by others. Rarely do I get any gray area in how people relate to what I have to say. Now, why would I share details on my life? Because Slashdot is heavily archived by Google, and I love to look over the years at how my opinions have changed, plus I can compare it to what other people said. My blogs don't get as much traffic as Slashdot does, so I have an excellent archive of how I have progressed over time, versus how technical/geek society has changed. When I first registered at slashdot, just saying "libertarian" was sure to get you moderated Troll. Now it is almost as sure to moderate you up. Tech society has changed, and I'd say for the better.
So I will go away, but you have to take the steps to do so.
"It's not impossible that a universal healthcare solution could actually reduce the amount of money most people spend on healthcare."
Please read my reply again. What I am concerned about is the fundamental violation of my rights and the rights of my neighbors and fellow citizens. I am being told that I am less and less entitled to the fruits of my labor. Last year, Tax Freedom Day fell on April 30th. That basically means that, if you started on January 1st and put all of your labor toward taxes, you would have to keep doing that until April 30th before you would be free to get 100% of your income for the rest of the year. With universal healthcare, this date will surely come later in the, each year.
"You're already paying for healthcare for everyone (if you spend anything on healthcare) in the form of high costs that have built in the assumption that something like 40% of the patients will never pay."
Thank the government for the situation we are now in. If the market were free to function of its own accord (as it can and always will despite the public's irrational fears), competition would lower costs. But competition has been eradicated. The government granted tax exemption status to certain insurance companies (Blue Cross / Blue Shield), which then gained a monopoly. They were then able to modify the definition of insurance to include not only emergencies, but routine medical visits. This, combined with tax-breaks for employer-sponsored insurance, has minimized incentives for customers to comparison-shop for medical services, and also minimized incentives for doctors and hospitals to compete on price.
When people learn that the government should keep its claws out of money altogether, we'll stop getting these idiotic solutions that are only proposed in order to stir up support from voters, but end up having devastating effects that last well beyond the candidate's political career.
Oh, wait, I forgot -- you believe that every man is an island, and apparently Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher ever. Your worldview sadly doesn't accomodate the fact that relationships (inclduing power relationships) actually exist, regardless of how they are codified (via the Constitutions of the US and of the States, and the laws issued in accordance with them).
The biggest problem with your worldview is that it is unrealistic. There are issues far bigger than one person, that cannot be resolved in a manner consistent with the greatest good (or, if it helps you understand better, optimal utilisation of resources) without a decision being taken en masse that applies to all. The "tragedy of the commons" is a great example to illustrate why sometimes it is necessary for one decision to apply to all in order to maintain best use of resources.
I think this is most telling. Your aversion to something has colored your understanding of it. If you really want to understand how the world works, you'll need to set aside your aversion to the political process in order to evaluate the good parts of it, and why they are there.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic party to lose even them most winnable election. They're so bad at this point that, even when they win, they STILL somehow lose (i.e. 2006--and not a SINGLE promise they made actually delivered on). There just is no place for guys like me in the political process anymore. I'm a civil-libertarian, social-liberal, fiscal-conservative, non-bible-thumper with no place to call my own. Every election I'm forced to choose between a bunch of spineless, undisciplined losers and a bunch of bible-thumping, war-mongering demagogues.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Of course, this presumes a team mentality. I guess since we're in that position as it is, it makes sense to play it as a game.
Of course, an ignorant (and worse, stupid) population voting is almost as bad. I've known of people who (at least claimed) to have voted for a particular candidate because he was expected to win. When you have people voting for that reason alone, it's pretty hard to take politics seriously.
The media, and the people, have very short attention spans. I seriously doubt that come November anyone is even going to remember the Obama/Clinton race. They'll all be focused on Obama/McCain at that point.
McCain, Clinton, Obama. It doesn't matter. George W. is going to hand them a shit sandwich.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I hear child molesters and dog abusers are big fans of Tim Russert. They watch his show religiously and purchase products from his advertisers. There for, every guest who come on his show has the responsibility to ask him for his side of the story, in a similar fashion:
"Tim, we all know that a lot of people who like kicking dogs and throwing puppies off cliffs are big fans of yours. We also know that you are widely respected in the child porn industry. What do you have to say about that?"
That's not a hard question, that's a loaded question. A hard question would be:
"Our economic advisers believe that your economic policy will fail for reasons X, Y, and Z. Explain how your plan will work to avoid X, Y, and Z."
But watching a man defend an economic policy is no where near as fun as watching him defend himself from accusations of being a terrorist, a Black Panther, Muslim, corrupt, Jewish, antisemitic, etc... If you want some tough questions, get some English interviewers over here to badger the candidates on the issues. If you want BS and fluff, stay tuned to American TV for it's 'Entertainment Value'.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Ah yes, your rights to have everything you want. I take it you won't drive on any bridges, flush your toilet into any sewers, or rely on any police to keep you safe, because the government shouldn't be "clawing away" your money. And definitely you wouldn't want to put that money into a bank insured by the FDIC, or take a mortgage backed by the same federal guarantees (explicit and implicit), or participate in a stock market where liars and thieves are kept (somewhat) at bay by the SEC. Nor do you want any assurance that your medicines are not contaminated, your foodstuffs safe, and your children's teachers are not psychopaths.
The "market will solve everything if you only you set it free" meme was new (and woefully simplistic) in 1971. Now it's tired, overused and foolishly simplistic. Your whole lifestyle is made possible by a profound set of government-run or backed institutions. If they're broken, the answer is to fix them and work for fair, well-regulated markers, not scrap everything we've learned and go back to the 1860s (as appealing as them sometimes seems from within a fluorescent-lit cube). I'm all for leaner and more effective government (as, in fact, are almost all of us who think government has a key role in society), but the nonsense about greedy government taking all your tax dollars sounds increasingly petulant when bridges are falling down, tainted food and drugs are being allowed into our stores, and people are losing their homes in droves, and the top marginal tax rate is the lowest its been in decades.
Government regulation of healthcare is indeed a gigantic mess, and the Blues are a great example of that mess. And yes, government intervention in a market can indeed make a problem worse. But it takes two to tango, so let's recall Gingrich-led cuts to Medicare in the 90s, and permanent resistance to Medicaid's existence (because after all, that's just more poor - read "lazy" - people clawing your government-backed money away) and general conservative opposition to every government program that doesn't involve fat contracts for their buddies don't really to much to promote fair, orderly and efficient markets either.
Sure, comparison shopping for healthcare would improve the system and make the market for healthcare more efficient, if there were choices real humans could afford. Have you ever priced non-employer sponsored "insurance" (the quotes are because health coverage is much more a bundled service agreement that it is insurance against unlikely adverse events)? The prospect of paying $10,000-$15,000 per year sounds like great set of choices, huh? I've learned a fair bit about the dysfunction of the medical reimbursement system in my current job, and I'm not sure a government-run healthcare program is all peaches and cream, primarily because the current incarnations sidestep the hard questions we need to debate about how much care should really cost and who should pay for what. There is a cost control element to healthcare that's deeply difficult to answer once your parent gets cancer or your sibling gets a debilitating disease. But that's a debate about how to structure things well within government and the private sector, not a worn-out screed about drowning government in the bathtub.
First, an argument can be made that insurance is already forced upon you. Most post-secondary institutions in this country require all students and employees to carry insurance. Many private companies also require insurance as a condition of employment.
Even more so, what fundamental right is being violated in universal health care? The right to die? The conservatives have attacked that many times already (see the Terri Schaivo case, for example).
Why do you feel the need to violate the rights of your neighbors and fellow citizens by telling them that, if they want to live in this country, they have to support your chosen cause.
Well, somebody made the invasion of Iraq their chosen cause. I never supported it. I didn't support it before it was done, and I certainly don't support it now. But I don't get to chose to withhold the portion of my tax dollars that go to the war because I don't support it.
If I can't withhold the part of my tax dollars that are used to kill people, why do you get to withhold the part of your tax dollars that could be used to heal people?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
>>This country desperately needs a REAL party for liberals, libertarians, and progressives.
It could use a party for real conservatives, too since this latest batch of Republicans is a spend-happy, big-government social-engineering disgrace. But even that would be a short-term solution as the real problem is that our Federal government is no longer bound by the limits of the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment. The Federals are supposed to just run the Navy, print the money, and mostly stay the hell out of our lives. Instead, well, we have our current situation of Bread & Circus.
10th Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant an authority, the Federals can't do it. What a quaint notion.
So tell me, what did the strong party discipline of the Republicans get us? Let me list you a couple: tax cuts at the same time at the same time as deficit spending, the Iraq War, & nominations for high office (including the supreme court) whose only qualification is loyalty to the Republican party or Bush. What you're calling weak party discipline is actually a rational debate about what the best policy is, in this case, who the best candidate would be. This is governing in the interest in the public because policy decisions are discussed in the open rather than ruling by fiat which is what the Republicans do, where the real decisions are made behind closed doors without public input and the result is presented fait accompli. Open and transparent government is not a bad thing!!
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Since the list of all possible problems is pretty much infinitely long, being able to prepare for MOST problems still leaves a very long list of problems that cannot be prepared for.
I can not imagine any problems that can't be prepared for in some way. In fact, I've personally spoken with many hundreds of people over the past 5 years or so, and heard of some real doozies, and in every case, I've made preparations that will cover me if those same problems should happen to me. Again, there are numerous ways to prepare for MANY unlikely situations, but most people don't care. They just want to spend today (and spend tomorrow's income today) and ignore the bad things that may happen. Then, when they do happen, we all have to pay for them. We don't share in their joy of overspending and irresponsibility, but we have to share in their problems.
What about problems that don't stem from the person who has them making a bad decision ? Or do you follow the "You've got problems, so you must have made a bad decision." line of thinking ?
No, I don't always believe that bad things come of bad decisions, but they do come from bad planning.
6 figures doesn't really require HUGE mistakes. Some car accidents will be right in that range (especially when people are injured). You just don't realize that you've been lucky so far.
Don't even get me started on car accidents, which are completely harmed by government intervention in the insurance and tort/civil industries. First of all, the only insurance that should matter is YOUR insurance, based on YOUR needs. A very wealthy individual should be buying uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance to cover what HIS loss would be in a near-fatal accident. If you earn $250k per year, and a car accident could ruin your future, PLAN FOR IT. Buy insurance. The same is true for medical malpractice liability: it should not exist. Instead, people should buy "negative outcome" insurance based on what their needs are in the event of a negative outcome. The insurers have gotten together with the State to protect their assets, while requiring ridiculous insurance for all so that everyone's insurance options are limited. Why should you FORCE people to get auto insurance? Instead, give others the chance to protect themselves against the possibility of an uninsured motorist. Easy enough.
In every case where people say "I never saw it coming," I'll say "Then you didn't research your decision well enough." I got castigated here on Slashdot for YEARS when I recommended people rent or buy a mobile home in 2004 and 2005, and hundreds of people told me I was wrong. Well, I researched it, and in the end, I was right. I've told hundreds of people to consider NOT going to college if it will cost them $150,000 out of pocket in student loans, and some listened, got good jobs, and in 4 years are making well more than the college graduates who now have $500,000 to pay over the next 15 years (in interest and principle). Again, I researched it. I've explained to many friends that marriage is a terrible idea unless their religion requires it. Now, more than 55% of those who got married are going through horrible divorces because they did not think things through. Again, research will give you the statistics for you to protect yourself against.
Unemployment? That's why you SAVE. Disability? Get good disability insurance (one friend of mine bought a $10k a year policy that would pay $1.5 million. When he went blind 6 years later, he thanked me for the idea) to cover the remaining years of income. Divorce? Don't get married without a prenup. Death? Life insurance. Illness? High deductible medical emergency insurance, with your regular visits paid at the cash-on-the-barrel discount rate (as much as 80% off with minimal negotiations).
It is endless: the excuses people make for why they didn't prepare for negative outcomes. Yet the information is there, and people just don't listen. They want things NOW, but the important things they want others to pay.
I saw the effects of this in 2006 when the two candidates did their absolute best to turn voters away from the other candidate. The end result after the primary was a lot of people who were so burned by the attack ads, that they refused to aid the winning candidate against the opposition with campaign donations. (Many also refused to vote in the upcoming election, but most said that they'd hold their nose and vote for our candidate but that they intended to donate money to other members of the party in other elections.)
The net result: A landslide victory for the opposition as the candidate who won the primary was never able to reenergize the party base and unable to match the opposition's funding afterwards. Our candidate tried to run on issues and on the corruption of our opponent, and the opposition ran on personality and won hands down after the sour note left by the primary.
If voters are left saying, "Who's McCain?" then that's not necessarily a good thing if all they can remember about Clinton or Obama is months of attack ads. Brand recognition isn't a good thing when the product's tainted.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh yeah, saying the Hillary supporters are hard-working adults and the Obama supporters are first-time-voter college students with plenty of time on their hands is REALLY OBJECTIVE.
Troll.
I like basketball!!1!
I wonder why you are interested in the campaign party staff? Perhaps because you are on the Clinton campaign staff?
I am watching the campaign from across the pond, and as I see it, Obama is the only campaigner who is all substance. It would be political suicide to go into too many specifics - that's just not how you win an election. If you check out some of his speeches on youtube etc, he is often the guy who is saying what needs to be said (from an intelligent person's perspective, anyway.... rednecks might be disappointed). The reason he projects change and hope to the world (not just the US), is not that he says "I will bring change", but that every word from his mouth shows a whole different attitude, that is a breath of fresh air.
To my mind, he is the only one of the lot who can restore respect for USA as a nation. Because he is the only one who is about building bridges and the only one who really understands international relations/diplomacy.
Thank goodness we have a congress to check and balance the president! I think I'll take the Socialist President and make him live with the Fascist Congress. In choosing the President, no matter who wins we lose. But when we can balance the two forces to nearly cancel each other out; winning both sides practically nothing. And when neither one wins; the American public wins.
Demented But Determined.
"No one ever grilled Ron Paul on the support he gets from far right wing racist groups on air . . ."
:-)
No one ever gave Ron Paul much air time to begin with, and we all know it.
This whole "guilt by association" thing is one of the most ridiculously flawed arguments in political discourse, whether we're talking about specific issues, parties, or individuals. The frequency with which this propaganda technique is used however highlights the unfortunate fact that it must be an effective one.
1. Person/Group A is BAD
2. Person/Group A supports P
3. Therefor P must also be BAD
It's utterly and completely absurd.
1. Hitler was evil
2. Hitler was a vegetarian
3. Therefore vegetarianism(vegeterians) must be evil.
Right?
It's an emotional BS argument that has no place in an intelligent debate. In fact, the Nazis and Hitler are used for this purpose so often that someone coined a term "Reductio ad Hitlerum" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) to define the phenomenon.
We definitely need a new term in the lexicon of U.S. politics to represent the frequent attempts to associate people and organizations with racists/racism because of such ridiculously tenuous connections.
A system of healthcare exactly like what you described existed in the developed world from antiquity up until 1930 or so. There was no insurance, no regulation, no licensure, no anything; healthcare was exactly like any other trade, and those who would provide healthcare competed solely on the basis of price and advertising. The result was nothing short of miserable. Those who could afford it had the best medical and surgical treatment they could buy, although that generally wasn't much (no training requirements, remember?) Those who couldn't relied on folk remedies (what we now call "alternative medicine") and their own physiological reserves, and if they became seriously ill or injured, too bad. Oh, and the average lifespan was about 35 years give or take, and the sick were left to rot on the public streets - or, if they were very, very lucky, they were taken in by charitable groups and largely treated with benign neglect. I sincerely hope that you can figure out why we abandoned that model of healthcare.
In public health, it has been proven hundreds of times that when you have large numbers of sick people in circulation, the general health of the population tends to decline, and the diseases they suffer tend to increase in severity. In short, sick people make the people around them sick as well. If nothing is done about the sick (i.e. they're left to die), the population's health rapidly becomes so severely compromised that any suitable crisis - a plague, a famine, a drought, whatever - can kill off the entire population in one shot. Luckily, though, the reverse is also true: when a population is maintained at a certain level of health, the illnesses suffered by each individual tend to be less severe than they would be otherwise, and the lifespan, working capacity and general health of that population tends to increase. Thus, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint, you'd actually be smarter to provide a certain, basic level of healthcare to each individual out of the common treasury, since it costs far, far less to treat the minor illnesses than the severe illnesses, and it also results in massive net gains in productivity when everyone is healthy enough to work. Everything else, of course, the individual can pay for, but providing basic care - an annual physical, immunizations, emergency care when necessary, etc - ought to be a no-brainer.
Our current system is far from perfect - anyone will tell you that. However, throwing it out the window for some mythical "free-market" solution is just as foolish and ultimately even more harmful than single-payer care could hope to be. It is true that people in good health, who can be expected not to incur any particularly egregious health expenditures in their lifetimes, would pay less for their care at first. However, people in poor health, who not only cost more to care for but generally aren't physically capable of working hard enough or long enough to earn the required amount of money to pay for their healthcare and all their other expenses, will be in even worse straits. Meanwhile, thanks to the masses of sick people in circulation, now all of a sudden the healthy people are getting sick more often and more severely, which throws your putative cost savings right out the window. You're right back to the Middle Ages - either the sick would be rotting on the streets, or you'd be asking physicians, nurses and allied health providers to shoulder those patients' costs through charity care. How is that fair to me and my colleagues, for us to subsidize a tax break for you? Are we not entitled to the fruits of our labors?
I find it amusing how you and your ilk tout the wonders of the free market, without ever realizing that what you propose is neither free nor market-driven. You're just demanding that someone else pay the bill for you, whether through taxes or charity. Funny how that's so often true - the people who yell the loudest about free markets are also the ones who demand the biggest handouts, breaks and subsidies from said markets.
I'll thank you to take your trolling elsewhere, and good day to you, sir.
(Full disclosure: The author is a healthcare professional.)
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
Survive five years of torture? That's nothing. Everyone in America with a brain has survived seven so far.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
This very thoughtful analysis misses one important inescapable fact. Clinton at most will get one more delegate from Texas. If they were competing for the popular vote both candidates would be running their campaigns differently. This one fact is a disaster for Clinton.
His father, was muslim, and at age 2, his father left the mom. When that happened, she took obama back to Christianity. As to the execution thing, give me a break. If that is the case, are you going to push the arkan items in the bible? As in, are you going to sell slaves? Ties to "MANY" dirty politicians in Chicago? By definition, Chicago has nothing but dirty politicians. The question is has be done anything dirty? I mean, if you want to look at dirty politics, then simply look at Clinton and McCain who have loads of issues with connections. And exactly what organization has be supported that was supporting terrorism?
/. has loads of it).
It is obvious that a good chunk of your statement is pure FUD and not a shred of truth. The question is, what about the rest. In particular, what real dirt do you have? Keep in mind, that ppl like me can be changed. But I want to see proof. There is far too much FUD and BS all over (and
If Clinton has proof of these things, and not just BS, she absolutely should bring it up. Better her, than later.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you run for president for a year and most people still don't know anything about you, that pretty much proves that you have absolutely no chance of winning.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Didn't they raise the federal minimum wage?
Relax I just want some peanuts.
Serves the Democrats right for crossing over and voting for McCain in Republican primaries. They have no right to complain after they stuck us with one of our weakest possible candidates (the only way it could've been worse would've been if that idiot Ron Paul ended up winning).
In the long term, maybe this clusterfrak of an election will demonstrate the folly of open primaries. What's wrong with the two parties getting to choose their candidates without interference from outsiders?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Yeah, but doing so is more easily refuted and is obviously a loaded question.
Now, if you give me a bit of time, and the kind of budgets these candidates are working with, I assure you I can find someone who has been convicted of morally horrendous crimes who is a fan of Russert. Heck, if I could track down two or three that have seen his show a few times, I could go so far as to claim "a large number of child molesters like your show!", with some proper staging and demographics work, I could probably even come up with a cool graphic pie chart that shows 68.5% of all child porn photographers polled like his show.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"Some of us have obligations that take precedence over politics."
Please tell me and the rest of us what obligations could possibly take precedence over ensuring your children's future? What do you think "politics" are?
You're complaining about being inconvenienced, and attempting to make your short term obligations to your family seem more important than your long term obligations to them.
Don't get pissed that some of us see through your rationalization and understand that you're being penny-wise and pound foolish.
I can not imagine any problems that can't be prepared for in some way.
Of course not, if you could imagine them then you could prepare for them.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
However, they haven't stepped up to the plate when it comes to Impeachment, and for that they will suffer.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Well I guess you better get McCain on the phone. We don't want the poor man to think he has a chance.
Not near as sick as the case of the insurance company who cancelled a womans insurance because she had breast cancer
Again, if the surveillance were reasonable, FISA would allow it. In fact, if the surveillance were unreasonable, but performed in good faith, FISA would retroactively grant a warrant. The only possible reason to avoid the FISA court is to do unreasonable searches that you know are not reasonable. Since Bush is evading FISA, therefore he must be doing unreasonable searches and he knows it.
So if you're calling your cousin in dubai who's a known terrorist, FISA would allow that. That's not the issue here. Hell, if you were to call your cousin in Canada who once visited a mosque as part of an interfaith program, that wouldn't be reasonable but if done in good faith FISA would sign off on it.
The problem comes when the government is knowingly spying on lawyers, reporters, doctors, and peace activists with absolutely no reason to believe they are doing anything wrong. That would not be allowed under FISA, and that's what's been lost under Bush.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Really we're talking about hundreds of extra Obama caucus votes vs. Hillary's hundreds of thousands of extra primary votes.
Really? Hundreds of thousands? According to cnn.com right now, Clinton has 1,455,959 votes and Obama has 1,356,330. That's just slightly under 100,000 and a far cry from "hundreds of thousands."
I would be interested to know just how much of each dollar spent goes to actual health care, and how much goes to all those other things.
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
>I wouldn't go holding up FDR as a shining example of liberal success --
>his constant fiddling and abysmal monetary policy ended up stretching
>the great depression out for a decade.
This is nonsense propaganda that is not backed up by historical fact. Do you even know what "economic meddling" FDR did?
The FDIC, the SEC, social security. All of these are core institutions in modern america, not "economic meddling." Why do you think the depression occured anyway? This wasn't some ordinary "economic cycle." The economy was *broken*, *no one* was employed, you couldn't retrieve your money from the bank, and people were starving to death en mass. Iraq has a better economy than we had.
FDR instituted the necessary reforms to *have* the kind of economy we have now, including *insuring your money in the bank* so that if the banks screw up (are you aware of the current sub prime loan crisis?) the banking industry still *exists* afterwards.
There a number of failed FDR programs that were repealed, which he can be rightly criticized for, but he basically *built* america's modern economy, which was *shit* prior to it. We weren't exactly an economic powerhouse *before* the depression, and without his reforms we couldn't be where we are today.
Next you're going to tell me that the Fed is the greatest evil to our money supply, like those ignorant ron paul wack jobs are always spouting off about.
It is always interesting to listen to English journalists, even Canadian journalists seem to be more confrontational than Americans. And sometimes this is really satisfying, and sometimes it isn't. It gets a bit frustrating when they ask things a candidate can't reasonably explain in a short period of time, and it is even more frustrating when the journalist ends up grilling the person primarily as a result of some cultural thing that the journalist doesn't get. But over all, I think we could do with a British interviewer or two to keep the politicians on their toes.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis