The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.
Nope. One design goal was that the A380 would be able to use precisely the same runways (or shorter) than the 747 and the goal was met. The A380 is, however, considered too big to regularly visit some airports that the 747 can use but that is due to gates and how it will congest taxiing but when did you last see Air Force One docked at a gate or other aircraft permitted nearby? Now, I do think that it will be a cold day in hell when Air Force One is an A380 but that's only because it's such an important national symbol. However, I also think that the A380 is a better aircraft than the 747-8 and the sales figures show it (only one airline order and that was by Boeing's most loyal customer, Lufthansa, and the latest rumors are that they'll exercise their opt-out clause since nobody wants to be a sole operator). Boeing hasn't put that much effort into it either because they've never believed that there's a market for such a giant aircraft as the A380 (let alone two).
The grandparent said airfields, not runways. In terms of ground clearance, taxiway clearance, and operational capability, the A380 is limited to several hundred airports across the globe. For instance, the outboard engines on the A380 greatly increase the risk of foreign object debris ingestion and precludes the use of that aircraft in many airports that can safely operate the 747.
The A380 sales figures have been rather pathetic. The 747-8i has been more so, but the 748 freighter has been selling quite well. The sales figures say nothing about how good of an airplane it is, just says that the very large airliner market is limited. Of course, I bet Airbus wishes it knew that before it launched the A380...
The airbus tanker was to be built in Alabama. In fact, the facility is either already built or currently under construction. So basically, the plane would have been just as American made as a boeing: all foreign parts and assembled in the US. The only difference is that northrop's plane was better, bigger, proven by use in other countries like Australia and created 25000 new jobs in the US. There was a lot of FUD spread by certain congressmen after northrop won that contract.
The plane was bigger... (and not necessarily in good ways), but everything else in your comment was pretty much BS.
So for short-term help to reduce joblessness, I suggest lowering taxes on jobs, the payroll tax. This could be paid for with an offsetting carbon tax.
Right. Your plan would have the ultimate result that the few of us that have jobs left would pay less taxes. Brilliant.
Look, I know that there's a strong anti-business sentiment, probably deserved. But you're not going to fix it by raising taxes on businesses and then assuming that giving those savings to someone else is going to make anything better. A recession is NOT the time bump up the tax rate, despite what NYC mayor Bloomberg thinks.
And if any of the guys from MSFT are reading this: STOP trying to be Apple! If I would have wanted a freaking Apple I would have bought one,okay? You are a business company, NOT a home entertainment company. Make a decent low resource using business OS and stop trying to be "Steve Jobs Jr" because frankly it is embarrassing.
If MSFT tried to be more like Apple, it would be a good thing. Remember the OS X development cycle? They made the core of the OS stable first before they worked on the GUI. The first release was OS X used the old Platinum UI. Instead, it seems like for Windows development, the flashiness of Aero or whatever they're going to call the Win7 theme appears to take precedent. Look at all the screen shots proliferating of Win7; it's all about the "new" interface, same as the old interface.
If MSFT wanted to be more like Apple, they would make sure that the core of their OS is rock stable before working on flashy gimmicks. That's the lesson than MSFT hasn't learned yet.
The shuttle is supposed to be retired in 2010, yes, but the way the work is going along on the replacement it very well might turn out to be even later then we expect it to be. What if there's a national need for space access in the meantime before the new system is up and ready? We're fucked then. Maybe they should consider keeping it around until we're sure we'll get the next system up and going.
I know there are proposals to keep the shuttle going a little longer if we need it, but if we get rid of it it will be up shit creek if it turns out we need it again. Imagine if they give away the shuttles in 2010 and then in 2012 the Ares explodes on launch.
I think we should keep it at least in storage until we're dead certain that the new project will work out.
That's why COTS exist- Commercial Orbital Transportation System.... to fill the gap between the end of shuttle flights and the beginning of Ares/Orion/whatever they're calling it now.
The economics for me are simple: Slashdot gets paid per plug and no one else is really going to care about the device until libraries start loaning out the materials. Until then, if I really want to read an eBook, I'll use what's available to me from my local library system via the web and read it on my already purchased mobile device.
You can "borrow" many eBooks using Adobe Digital Edition, which is compatible with the Sony Reader.
Yeah, I haven't got the logic by offering money for the banks either.
In my limited view of things a bank earn money from the misery of the poor to make more money for the rich, and now when they fuck up the poor people is supposed to back them up thru their government and tax payments?
I'd just let them be responsible for their own mess.
But then I don't know much about how these kinds of things works so maybe I've go it all wrong. I haven't studied economics:D
It's pretty clear; if banks start to fail, other institutions and individuals hoard their money. The financial system is built on the presumed liquidity of money; once that changes, the entire financial system collapses. If you think that $700b is pricey, the alternative is much, much worse.
Still, the bailout plan is tantamount to taking an aspirin for a massive bacterial infection. It might make you feel good, but you're still pretty fucked up.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the chance of a Cuban child dying at five years of age or younger is 7 per 1000 live births in Cuba, while it's 8 per 1000 in the US. WHO reports that Cuban males have a life expectancy at birth of 75 years and females 79 years. In comparison, the US life expectancy at birth is 75 and 80 years for males and females, respectively. Cuba's infant mortality rate is lower than the US with 5 deaths per thousand in Cuba versus 7 per thousand in the US. Cuba has nearly twice as many physicians as the U.S. -- 5.91 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.56 doctors per thousand, according to WHO.
Despite the US embargo on Cuba.
Dude, you just fucked up. Cuba's health system is the best in "Latin" America, and is in many ways better then the USA's. Tell me how that is a failure?
I will beat this drum AGAIN AND AGAIN until people realize.... LIFE EXPECTANCY AND INFANT MORTALITY have little to do with the quality of health care received. If you look at the statistics, infant mortality in the US is skewed because it has a disproportionate amount of low birthweight infants.... who have an extremely high mortality rate. The US is actually far ahead of anyone in the world in terms of survivabiliy of low birthweight infants. The question is, why does the US have such a high rate of at-risk neonates? It has little to do with the quality of health care, and much more to do with social factors like rates of teenage pregnancy, rates of drug abuse, and metabolic factors.
Since many small employers will choose to offer insurance through the government program, and many individuals will buy insurance at group rates, Obama's plan keep the insurance industry viable by having the government take over insuring catastrophic health care. This of course, is a budget buster.
I have a hard time believing that Obama's health care plan isn't anything short of a clever back door to single payer insurance. You're having a tax subsidized government entity competing for patients and dollars versus private industry. Spoiler alert: the government will win. My question is, when was the last time that the government took over something from private industry... and improved the efficiency and quality of service? Obama also talks about increasing Medicaid... proof positive to me that Obama has no clue on how to improve health care in this country.
It's not as simple as saying "McCain wants to tax health care benefits", which while technically true is really a clever fib. The problem is that McCain's plan doesn't believe that there is a shared interest in this problem that is distinguishable from the net effect of individuals pursuing their self interest. This is what Republicans mean when they talk about "freedom", and in fact, this kind of shared pursuit of individual gain is often for the best. But the logical end point of the view that this is best in every case is not a program of government incentives and disincentives. It's for the government to have no health policy at all. Introducing a government health policy is tacit admission that cumulative self-interest is not optimal in this case. This is not to say his plan can't work, but you can't argue it has to work from the ideological standpoint that pure market solutions are always best.
One of the nice things about Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health plan is that it required everyone to buy insurance. I honestly feel like McCain has it half right. Employer based health insurance came about during the WWII wage freezes as an incentive for employees. It has been a disaster since. We can try to patch it up, but the fact remains that this is one of those things that favors big business vs small business... larger companies have more clout, and the insurance companies are more willing to insure larger companies for cheaper because they can spread out the risk of health care payouts over a large population. This implicit favor for big businesses... isn't that what Obama ISN'T about?
Taking away the incentive for employer based health care while simultaneously providing an alternative makes sense. Unfortunately, McCain only gets halfway there. The real benefit in terms of cost and risk is to shift that advantage that larger companies have and spread it out over 300 million Americans. You do that by (1) telling insurance companies that if they are to get any of the $2500/$5000 tax rebate, they have to insure everybody and cover preexisting conditions, and (2) telling taxpayers that they have to buy insurance.... two things that McCain doesn't do.
McCain is right on this at least: it makes sense to take health care out of the hands of employers. Obama plan flirts with single payer, but doesn't go all the way. It wouldn't want to get a reputation as a hussy... er... socialist. I think Obama's plan is over complicated. A straightforward offer of government backed health insurance would be simpler and get the job done. However, as you point out, the insurance companies would go ape-shit over single payer, which would be a death sentence for them. It isn't enough for the President to stand up against the lobbyists, congress will have to also. This introduces... complications.
Single payer will be the death knell of the American medical system. Let's point to the crux of the problem. 47 million uninsured Americans is bad. Per capita health care costs in Amer
Australia is placed in the top 10 for health outcomes, the US is around 30th (ie: near the bottom of the 'developed' countries list).
From an outsiders perspective your health system was trully the envy of the world 40yrs ago but now "the most expensive health system in the world" is also widely seen as dysfunctional. It will not change one bit until your politicians see the problem of health care as a bipartisan issue that needs to be managed by proffesionals rather than used as an ideological club to bash each other over the head.
The question that needs to be asked is, does the US lag in the leading health indicators because of its health care system, or because of other factors? It should be interesting to note that in the 1950s, before Canada implemented its universal health care system, Canada led the US in infant mortality and life expectancy, by approximately the same amount as it does today. Is it the health care system, or something else?
Let's take infant mortality. It's a known fact that the US is actually leaps ahead of the rest of the world in terms of survival rates for low birth-weight infants. The problem is, the US leads the rest of the world in rates of low birth-weight infants. This skews the infant mortality rates and makes it look like the US health care system is incompetent... but instead, we should focus on what causes the rates of low birth-weight infants to be so high in the US. I won't go into the answer here, because it, to my knowledge, hasn't been satisfactorily answered, but given the existence of CHIP and WIC... it doesn't point towards the health care system.
And as far as life expectancy... again, a whole host of factors. Is the rate of obesity, diabetes mellitus and hypertension skyrocketing in the US because of the health care system? Hardly. Tubby Tubberson isn't likely to lose the extra 75 lbs he's carrying around his belly just because he can see a doctor for free. And yet, the metabolic epidemic in the US has decreased life expectancy and has increased costs as well. What is the health care system supposed to do about that? (This is a real question, not a rhetorical one).
And as far as comparing health care systems with, say, the UK. I'm about to graduate from medical school. The only thing that kept me in school while I was (and still am) accumulating a small fortune in debt is the fact that i will, eventually, be able to make it back. If the US health care system socializes like the systems in Canada, France, and the UK, that won't happen. What will be the result? The best and brightest won't be willing to make the sacrifice in time and money to go into medicine. It's happened in Britain; they had to pass a law a few years ago to increase the salaries of doctors because too few people are going into medicine. The effects of that, in terms of cost of health care, have yet to be realized. The Canadian health care system lags in innovations available, because the government won't pay for it.
What's the solution? There can be universal health care without socialized health care. McCain actually has half of a decent health care plan. Obama has the other half. Unfortunately, only one plan is likely to get implemented.
but space research has already been commercialized. all of NASA's technology is developed by private contractors. that's why it costs so much to build and launch the shuttle. on top of the actual development costs (materials, salaries for engineer/scientist/researchers, etc.) a large portion of their budget spending is needed to feed commercial profits--companies like Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. as well as smaller private contractors that also need to make a profit on each contracted component.
cut out the CEO salaries, corporate profits, and replace business politics with a scientific meritocracy, then you'll see a much more efficient space agency. a lot of other national space agencies seem to be able to do more with less (as with NASA in the past), so there's no inherent problem with public space research.
I'm sorry, this is going to sound harsh, but the parent post is just your typical left-wing anti-business nonsense, pure and simple. NASA is not in the manufacturing business, and to my knowledge, never was. The Apollo hardware was not built by NASA but by the aerospace industry on contract... by Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed or their predecessors. You see, even 50 years ago, NASA knew what the parent poster still does not-- it's cheaper and more efficient to build on contract than to have the government in the manufacturing business. The flaws of the space shuttle are not that they are built by private industry, but that they were designed by a committee of NASA managers.
If you removed all lawyers and let all parties argue their own cases, you'd immediately see a drastic shift in power to the upper class and more educated, who would actually know the law, and have time to study and interpret it. The reason we have lawyers is so that EVERYONE has an expert on the law on their side.
Nice sentiment, but sadly, the upper class already has the power. I'm sorry, but a poor working man who is wrongly accused of murder has little chance of finding a lawyer who will get him off, whereas... well, OJ Simpson. An immigrant family-owned business has no real legal discourse if the large real estate conglomerate that leases the storefront of the business decides to screw over the family.
People talk about a health care disparity, which exists and must be fixed. There also exists a justice disparity that no one really seems to talk about. Given the proportion of politicians who made the practice of law their previous profession, I doubt this will ever change.
And one point that continues to irk me about Obama. As a soon-to-be doctor, one of the biggest issues that I'm concerned with is health care reform. Absolutely recognizing the need for universal health care and health care reform, I worry that many of the proposed changes will lead to short-term cost savings at the expense of long-term innovation. Looking at Obama's health care plan, he blames many elements for the outrageous cost of health care today-- the heartless insurance companies, the wasteful hospitals, the greedy drug companies. What party does Obama not even mention?
You guessed it.... the money-sucking lawyers. Coincidence?
Nope, he would have sat and demanded sanctions against the Taliban, watched our economy go into flames because of Kyoto, and would try to fight the dwindling surplus by raising taxes and further moving this country into the Greater Depression.
Look, Bush sucked. That doesn't mean that Gore or Kerry would have been better.
But if we were to generate our energy locally, with renewable resources, not only would we leave a nicer place for our kids, grandkids, and their offspring, we'd also improve our national sovereignty. Rather than fund deadly radicals, we'd fund the nice guy down the street. Rather than ship our cash to entities who threaten us at every turn, we'd fund your next-door neighbors. No matter where you live, no matter who you are, no matter how wealthy you happen to be, this is a good idea.
Hear, hear. I suggest you forward your post to Senator Edward Kennedy and RFK2 and the Cape Cod liberals who, while saying that we need to embrace alternative energy sources, actively blocked a wind farm project because, partly, the 400 foot turbines placed 6 miles offshore would "steal the stars and nighttime views".
It seems that the high priests of the "green movement," led by such illuminaries as Gore and Kennedy, fully embrace the "do as I say, not as I do" principle of life.
at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
So what? That means nothing. Just because gas prices were lower, doesn't mean the problem magically went away. Gas is still extremely expensive, and the problem still requires attention. And in that intervening month, he was convinced that tapping into the SPR was an option to be considered. I still don't see how that's anything but a simple change of position in the face of new facts.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with.
Well, that's your opinion. Good for you. That doesn't make Obama's position a flip flop. It just makes it potentially stupid (I don't know enough about the issue, so I can't really judge... and there's no reason to believe you do, either).
Geez louise. You've already decided on the issue, so I suppose this is a waste of my time.
Please cite ONE NEW FACT that would support his COMPLETE flip-flop in the period of one month.
I've explained my reasons why tapping into the reserve is stupid. You have done nothing to counter my reasoning. You just assume that St. Obama must have a good reason, but have no evidence to back that claim. You just assume that he must have a good reason, even though Sen. Obama has yet to articulate it.
You, my friend, are the textbook description of someone who's been taken in by a cult of personality.
But given the difficulty of the current economic climate, what makes you believe his change of position on the SPR is a flip-flop, and not simply a re-evaluation? I mean, right about now, the *last* person you want in office is someone so completely dogmatic that they're unwilling to evaluate all options, including tapping into the SPR, or some limited amount of offshore drilling (which Obama has also recently said he'd be willing to consider).
Well, the fact that a month before changing his position, he affirmed that he opposed releasing from the SPR... at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with. He wants to release 10% of the reserve, and then have it filled with less valuable oil that requires more refining-- completely contradictory to the intent of the reserve... the last time it was used, IIRC, was post-Katrina due to the fact that refineries in the Gulf were offline. Now you're going to require more refining in an emergency reserve?? Stupid, stupid, stupid. If this was his re-evaluation, then it just shows that he's not that smart.
Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues.
Such as?
Well, for starters, other than NASA, the most egregious one would be the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I'd also have to add the use of public funding for his election.
I'm voting Libertarian when I can and then voting against the incumbent - regardless of what party he belongs to. We need term limits in Congress. If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
I'm 90% with you. But after the Libertarians nominated Bob Barr, I'm having trouble having any faith in the LP.
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
J. H. Christ. This is almost as bad as the whole "if you don't support Obama, you must be racist" deal. Almost.
The fact of the matter is, Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues. There has been no indication of why he changed his position on the issues. For someone who basically won the nomination based on his oratory skills, don't you think he should at the very least be able to articulate what changed in the course of a week weeks- to months?
And the fact that people who call him out on such things are either labelled partisan or bigoted is outrageous.
And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax. At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Given the current crisis, I'd vote for Obama on that alone. What economic knowledge he's demonstrated makes him far more qualified a candidate than McCain or Clinton, despite some of his other failings.
Obama has demonstrated nothing. I agree with Obama's decision not to support a gas tax holiday, but Obama's flip-flop stance on releasing the Strategic Reserve to combat high gas prices proves that he's probably even stupider than the average politician. And that he proposed this strategy a mere month after announcing that he wouldn't, while criticizing McCain for his reversal after 8 years when the price of gas has increased by 6x, shows that he's the consummate politician-- and that's certainly no compliment.
The whole point of the Strategic Reserve is to be used for emergencies. Obama wants to withdraw light crude from the reserve and then refill it with heavy crude. This presupposes a drop in gas prices, which certainly is no guarantee. It also undermines one of the reasons why the reserve is important; say, a hurricane wiping out refineries. Replacing light crude with heavy crude which requires MORE refining runs counter to logic.
I'd have wished that Obama was smarter and opposed the gas tax holiday for sane reasons. Now, it just seems like he was trying to differentiate himself from Clinton and McCain.
That's the problem with [the other side], they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset.
Irony, much?
We'll see what happens when Obama is president and the Democrats control Congress. I'm a moderate conservative, and I find Colbert hilarious. Stewart? eehh eeh eehh... not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
The 747 can operate out of more airfields than the A380.
Nope. One design goal was that the A380 would be able to use precisely the same runways (or shorter) than the 747 and the goal was met. The A380 is, however, considered too big to regularly visit some airports that the 747 can use but that is due to gates and how it will congest taxiing but when did you last see Air Force One docked at a gate or other aircraft permitted nearby? Now, I do think that it will be a cold day in hell when Air Force One is an A380 but that's only because it's such an important national symbol. However, I also think that the A380 is a better aircraft than the 747-8 and the sales figures show it (only one airline order and that was by Boeing's most loyal customer, Lufthansa, and the latest rumors are that they'll exercise their opt-out clause since nobody wants to be a sole operator). Boeing hasn't put that much effort into it either because they've never believed that there's a market for such a giant aircraft as the A380 (let alone two).
The grandparent said airfields, not runways. In terms of ground clearance, taxiway clearance, and operational capability, the A380 is limited to several hundred airports across the globe. For instance, the outboard engines on the A380 greatly increase the risk of foreign object debris ingestion and precludes the use of that aircraft in many airports that can safely operate the 747.
The A380 sales figures have been rather pathetic. The 747-8i has been more so, but the 748 freighter has been selling quite well. The sales figures say nothing about how good of an airplane it is, just says that the very large airliner market is limited. Of course, I bet Airbus wishes it knew that before it launched the A380...
The airbus tanker was to be built in Alabama. In fact, the facility is either already built or currently under construction. So basically, the plane would have been just as American made as a boeing: all foreign parts and assembled in the US. The only difference is that northrop's plane was better, bigger, proven by use in other countries like Australia and created 25000 new jobs in the US. There was a lot of FUD spread by certain congressmen after northrop won that contract.
The plane was bigger... (and not necessarily in good ways), but everything else in your comment was pretty much BS.
So for short-term help to reduce joblessness, I suggest lowering taxes on jobs, the payroll tax. This could be paid for with an offsetting carbon tax.
Right. Your plan would have the ultimate result that the few of us that have jobs left would pay less taxes. Brilliant.
Look, I know that there's a strong anti-business sentiment, probably deserved. But you're not going to fix it by raising taxes on businesses and then assuming that giving those savings to someone else is going to make anything better. A recession is NOT the time bump up the tax rate, despite what NYC mayor Bloomberg thinks.
And if any of the guys from MSFT are reading this: STOP trying to be Apple! If I would have wanted a freaking Apple I would have bought one,okay? You are a business company, NOT a home entertainment company. Make a decent low resource using business OS and stop trying to be "Steve Jobs Jr" because frankly it is embarrassing.
If MSFT tried to be more like Apple, it would be a good thing. Remember the OS X development cycle? They made the core of the OS stable first before they worked on the GUI. The first release was OS X used the old Platinum UI. Instead, it seems like for Windows development, the flashiness of Aero or whatever they're going to call the Win7 theme appears to take precedent. Look at all the screen shots proliferating of Win7; it's all about the "new" interface, same as the old interface.
If MSFT wanted to be more like Apple, they would make sure that the core of their OS is rock stable before working on flashy gimmicks. That's the lesson than MSFT hasn't learned yet.
The shuttle is supposed to be retired in 2010, yes, but the way the work is going along on the replacement it very well might turn out to be even later then we expect it to be. What if there's a national need for space access in the meantime before the new system is up and ready? We're fucked then. Maybe they should consider keeping it around until we're sure we'll get the next system up and going.
I know there are proposals to keep the shuttle going a little longer if we need it, but if we get rid of it it will be up shit creek if it turns out we need it again. Imagine if they give away the shuttles in 2010 and then in 2012 the Ares explodes on launch.
I think we should keep it at least in storage until we're dead certain that the new project will work out.
That's why COTS exist- Commercial Orbital Transportation System.... to fill the gap between the end of shuttle flights and the beginning of Ares/Orion/whatever they're calling it now.
The economics for me are simple: Slashdot gets paid per plug and no one else is really going to care about the device until libraries start loaning out the materials. Until then, if I really want to read an eBook, I'll use what's available to me from my local library system via the web and read it on my already purchased mobile device.
You can "borrow" many eBooks using Adobe Digital Edition, which is compatible with the Sony Reader.
Yeah, I haven't got the logic by offering money for the banks either.
In my limited view of things a bank earn money from the misery of the poor to make more money for the rich, and now when they fuck up the poor people is supposed to back them up thru their government and tax payments?
I'd just let them be responsible for their own mess.
But then I don't know much about how these kinds of things works so maybe I've go it all wrong. I haven't studied economics :D
It's pretty clear; if banks start to fail, other institutions and individuals hoard their money. The financial system is built on the presumed liquidity of money; once that changes, the entire financial system collapses. If you think that $700b is pricey, the alternative is much, much worse.
Still, the bailout plan is tantamount to taking an aspirin for a massive bacterial infection. It might make you feel good, but you're still pretty fucked up.
hello?! KENNEDY, LBJ?
They're both dead, Jim.
Typical hypocrite.
Why bother replying to my post if you don't even bother to read it? Oh wait, that's /. for ya...
Got some numbers on Cuba's healthcare being a failure?
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Cuba References the World Health Organisation.
Despite the US embargo on Cuba.
Dude, you just fucked up. Cuba's health system is the best in "Latin" America, and is in many ways better then the USA's. Tell me how that is a failure?
I will beat this drum AGAIN AND AGAIN until people realize.... LIFE EXPECTANCY AND INFANT MORTALITY have little to do with the quality of health care received. If you look at the statistics, infant mortality in the US is skewed because it has a disproportionate amount of low birthweight infants.... who have an extremely high mortality rate. The US is actually far ahead of anyone in the world in terms of survivabiliy of low birthweight infants. The question is, why does the US have such a high rate of at-risk neonates? It has little to do with the quality of health care, and much more to do with social factors like rates of teenage pregnancy, rates of drug abuse, and metabolic factors.
Since many small employers will choose to offer insurance through the government program, and many individuals will buy insurance at group rates, Obama's plan keep the insurance industry viable by having the government take over insuring catastrophic health care. This of course, is a budget buster.
I have a hard time believing that Obama's health care plan isn't anything short of a clever back door to single payer insurance. You're having a tax subsidized government entity competing for patients and dollars versus private industry. Spoiler alert: the government will win. My question is, when was the last time that the government took over something from private industry... and improved the efficiency and quality of service? Obama also talks about increasing Medicaid... proof positive to me that Obama has no clue on how to improve health care in this country.
It's not as simple as saying "McCain wants to tax health care benefits", which while technically true is really a clever fib. The problem is that McCain's plan doesn't believe that there is a shared interest in this problem that is distinguishable from the net effect of individuals pursuing their self interest. This is what Republicans mean when they talk about "freedom", and in fact, this kind of shared pursuit of individual gain is often for the best. But the logical end point of the view that this is best in every case is not a program of government incentives and disincentives. It's for the government to have no health policy at all. Introducing a government health policy is tacit admission that cumulative self-interest is not optimal in this case. This is not to say his plan can't work, but you can't argue it has to work from the ideological standpoint that pure market solutions are always best.
One of the nice things about Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health plan is that it required everyone to buy insurance. I honestly feel like McCain has it half right. Employer based health insurance came about during the WWII wage freezes as an incentive for employees. It has been a disaster since. We can try to patch it up, but the fact remains that this is one of those things that favors big business vs small business... larger companies have more clout, and the insurance companies are more willing to insure larger companies for cheaper because they can spread out the risk of health care payouts over a large population. This implicit favor for big businesses... isn't that what Obama ISN'T about?
Taking away the incentive for employer based health care while simultaneously providing an alternative makes sense. Unfortunately, McCain only gets halfway there. The real benefit in terms of cost and risk is to shift that advantage that larger companies have and spread it out over 300 million Americans. You do that by (1) telling insurance companies that if they are to get any of the $2500/$5000 tax rebate, they have to insure everybody and cover preexisting conditions, and (2) telling taxpayers that they have to buy insurance.... two things that McCain doesn't do.
McCain is right on this at least: it makes sense to take health care out of the hands of employers. Obama plan flirts with single payer, but doesn't go all the way. It wouldn't want to get a reputation as a hussy ... er... socialist. I think Obama's plan is over complicated. A straightforward offer of government backed health insurance would be simpler and get the job done. However, as you point out, the insurance companies would go ape-shit over single payer, which would be a death sentence for them. It isn't enough for the President to stand up against the lobbyists, congress will have to also. This introduces ... complications.
Single payer will be the death knell of the American medical system. Let's point to the crux of the problem. 47 million uninsured Americans is bad. Per capita health care costs in Amer
Australia is placed in the top 10 for health outcomes, the US is around 30th (ie: near the bottom of the 'developed' countries list).
From an outsiders perspective your health system was trully the envy of the world 40yrs ago but now "the most expensive health system in the world" is also widely seen as dysfunctional. It will not change one bit until your politicians see the problem of health care as a bipartisan issue that needs to be managed by proffesionals rather than used as an ideological club to bash each other over the head.
The question that needs to be asked is, does the US lag in the leading health indicators because of its health care system, or because of other factors? It should be interesting to note that in the 1950s, before Canada implemented its universal health care system, Canada led the US in infant mortality and life expectancy, by approximately the same amount as it does today. Is it the health care system, or something else?
Let's take infant mortality. It's a known fact that the US is actually leaps ahead of the rest of the world in terms of survival rates for low birth-weight infants. The problem is, the US leads the rest of the world in rates of low birth-weight infants. This skews the infant mortality rates and makes it look like the US health care system is incompetent... but instead, we should focus on what causes the rates of low birth-weight infants to be so high in the US. I won't go into the answer here, because it, to my knowledge, hasn't been satisfactorily answered, but given the existence of CHIP and WIC... it doesn't point towards the health care system.
And as far as life expectancy... again, a whole host of factors. Is the rate of obesity, diabetes mellitus and hypertension skyrocketing in the US because of the health care system? Hardly. Tubby Tubberson isn't likely to lose the extra 75 lbs he's carrying around his belly just because he can see a doctor for free. And yet, the metabolic epidemic in the US has decreased life expectancy and has increased costs as well. What is the health care system supposed to do about that? (This is a real question, not a rhetorical one).
And as far as comparing health care systems with, say, the UK. I'm about to graduate from medical school. The only thing that kept me in school while I was (and still am) accumulating a small fortune in debt is the fact that i will, eventually, be able to make it back. If the US health care system socializes like the systems in Canada, France, and the UK, that won't happen. What will be the result? The best and brightest won't be willing to make the sacrifice in time and money to go into medicine. It's happened in Britain; they had to pass a law a few years ago to increase the salaries of doctors because too few people are going into medicine. The effects of that, in terms of cost of health care, have yet to be realized. The Canadian health care system lags in innovations available, because the government won't pay for it.
What's the solution? There can be universal health care without socialized health care. McCain actually has half of a decent health care plan. Obama has the other half. Unfortunately, only one plan is likely to get implemented.
but space research has already been commercialized. all of NASA's technology is developed by private contractors. that's why it costs so much to build and launch the shuttle. on top of the actual development costs (materials, salaries for engineer/scientist/researchers, etc.) a large portion of their budget spending is needed to feed commercial profits--companies like Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. as well as smaller private contractors that also need to make a profit on each contracted component.
cut out the CEO salaries, corporate profits, and replace business politics with a scientific meritocracy, then you'll see a much more efficient space agency. a lot of other national space agencies seem to be able to do more with less (as with NASA in the past), so there's no inherent problem with public space research.
I'm sorry, this is going to sound harsh, but the parent post is just your typical left-wing anti-business nonsense, pure and simple. NASA is not in the manufacturing business, and to my knowledge, never was. The Apollo hardware was not built by NASA but by the aerospace industry on contract... by Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed or their predecessors. You see, even 50 years ago, NASA knew what the parent poster still does not-- it's cheaper and more efficient to build on contract than to have the government in the manufacturing business. The flaws of the space shuttle are not that they are built by private industry, but that they were designed by a committee of NASA managers.
Because lawyers don't have much to do with it? Of course, neither do the drug companies....
Sure. 6-figure malpractice insurance premiums aren't affecting the cost of health care at all. That sounds logical...
If you removed all lawyers and let all parties argue their own cases, you'd immediately see a drastic shift in power to the upper class and more educated, who would actually know the law, and have time to study and interpret it. The reason we have lawyers is so that EVERYONE has an expert on the law on their side.
Nice sentiment, but sadly, the upper class already has the power. I'm sorry, but a poor working man who is wrongly accused of murder has little chance of finding a lawyer who will get him off, whereas... well, OJ Simpson. An immigrant family-owned business has no real legal discourse if the large real estate conglomerate that leases the storefront of the business decides to screw over the family.
People talk about a health care disparity, which exists and must be fixed. There also exists a justice disparity that no one really seems to talk about. Given the proportion of politicians who made the practice of law their previous profession, I doubt this will ever change.
And one point that continues to irk me about Obama. As a soon-to-be doctor, one of the biggest issues that I'm concerned with is health care reform. Absolutely recognizing the need for universal health care and health care reform, I worry that many of the proposed changes will lead to short-term cost savings at the expense of long-term innovation. Looking at Obama's health care plan, he blames many elements for the outrageous cost of health care today-- the heartless insurance companies, the wasteful hospitals, the greedy drug companies. What party does Obama not even mention?
You guessed it.... the money-sucking lawyers. Coincidence?
Look, Bush sucked. That doesn't mean that Gore or Kerry would have been better.
But if we were to generate our energy locally, with renewable resources, not only would we leave a nicer place for our kids, grandkids, and their offspring, we'd also improve our national sovereignty. Rather than fund deadly radicals, we'd fund the nice guy down the street. Rather than ship our cash to entities who threaten us at every turn, we'd fund your next-door neighbors. No matter where you live, no matter who you are, no matter how wealthy you happen to be, this is a good idea.
Hear, hear. I suggest you forward your post to Senator Edward Kennedy and RFK2 and the Cape Cod liberals who, while saying that we need to embrace alternative energy sources, actively blocked a wind farm project because, partly, the 400 foot turbines placed 6 miles offshore would "steal the stars and nighttime views".
It seems that the high priests of the "green movement," led by such illuminaries as Gore and Kennedy, fully embrace the "do as I say, not as I do" principle of life.
at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
So what? That means nothing. Just because gas prices were lower, doesn't mean the problem magically went away. Gas is still extremely expensive, and the problem still requires attention. And in that intervening month, he was convinced that tapping into the SPR was an option to be considered. I still don't see how that's anything but a simple change of position in the face of new facts.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with.
Well, that's your opinion. Good for you. That doesn't make Obama's position a flip flop. It just makes it potentially stupid (I don't know enough about the issue, so I can't really judge... and there's no reason to believe you do, either).
Geez louise. You've already decided on the issue, so I suppose this is a waste of my time.
Please cite ONE NEW FACT that would support his COMPLETE flip-flop in the period of one month.
I've explained my reasons why tapping into the reserve is stupid. You have done nothing to counter my reasoning. You just assume that St. Obama must have a good reason, but have no evidence to back that claim. You just assume that he must have a good reason, even though Sen. Obama has yet to articulate it.
You, my friend, are the textbook description of someone who's been taken in by a cult of personality.
But given the difficulty of the current economic climate, what makes you believe his change of position on the SPR is a flip-flop, and not simply a re-evaluation? I mean, right about now, the *last* person you want in office is someone so completely dogmatic that they're unwilling to evaluate all options, including tapping into the SPR, or some limited amount of offshore drilling (which Obama has also recently said he'd be willing to consider).
Well, the fact that a month before changing his position, he affirmed that he opposed releasing from the SPR... at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with. He wants to release 10% of the reserve, and then have it filled with less valuable oil that requires more refining-- completely contradictory to the intent of the reserve... the last time it was used, IIRC, was post-Katrina due to the fact that refineries in the Gulf were offline. Now you're going to require more refining in an emergency reserve?? Stupid, stupid, stupid. If this was his re-evaluation, then it just shows that he's not that smart.
Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues.
Such as?
Well, for starters, other than NASA, the most egregious one would be the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I'd also have to add the use of public funding for his election.
I'm voting Libertarian when I can and then voting against the incumbent - regardless of what party he belongs to. We need term limits in Congress. If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
I'm 90% with you. But after the Libertarians nominated Bob Barr, I'm having trouble having any faith in the LP.
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
J. H. Christ. This is almost as bad as the whole "if you don't support Obama, you must be racist" deal. Almost.
The fact of the matter is, Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues. There has been no indication of why he changed his position on the issues. For someone who basically won the nomination based on his oratory skills, don't you think he should at the very least be able to articulate what changed in the course of a week weeks- to months?
And the fact that people who call him out on such things are either labelled partisan or bigoted is outrageous.
And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax. At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Given the current crisis, I'd vote for Obama on that alone. What economic knowledge he's demonstrated makes him far more qualified a candidate than McCain or Clinton, despite some of his other failings.
Obama has demonstrated nothing. I agree with Obama's decision not to support a gas tax holiday, but Obama's flip-flop stance on releasing the Strategic Reserve to combat high gas prices proves that he's probably even stupider than the average politician. And that he proposed this strategy a mere month after announcing that he wouldn't, while criticizing McCain for his reversal after 8 years when the price of gas has increased by 6x, shows that he's the consummate politician-- and that's certainly no compliment.
The whole point of the Strategic Reserve is to be used for emergencies. Obama wants to withdraw light crude from the reserve and then refill it with heavy crude. This presupposes a drop in gas prices, which certainly is no guarantee. It also undermines one of the reasons why the reserve is important; say, a hurricane wiping out refineries. Replacing light crude with heavy crude which requires MORE refining runs counter to logic.
I'd have wished that Obama was smarter and opposed the gas tax holiday for sane reasons. Now, it just seems like he was trying to differentiate himself from Clinton and McCain.
That's the problem with [the other side], they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset.
Irony, much?
We'll see what happens when Obama is president and the Democrats control Congress. I'm a moderate conservative, and I find Colbert hilarious. Stewart? eehh eeh eehh... not so much.