That's a very liberal way of looking at the problem but it doesn't begin to even scratch the surface of the problem.
Unfortunately it looks like there's not even going to be a public option
Good. Replacing private sector bureaucracy with public sector bureaucracy is no solution at all.
only madatory insurance. Big boon to the insurance industry, nada for ordinary people.
Mandatory insurance doesn't represent a "boon" to the insurance industry. The argument behind mandatory insurance is to get healthy people in the risk people so the average cost of premiums comes down. I don't happen to agree with the notion of the Government taking away my freedom of association but to say that the mandate represents a "boon" to the insurance industry is missing the point.
I'd say huge salaries paid to top insurance company executives is another big reason.
Then you'd be missing the point yet again I'm afraid. You could confiscate the profits of every single health insurance company in this country and you'd only be able to pay for four days of health care for the American people. The health insurance companies themselves are not the problem. The structure of the underlying marketplace is the problem.
Think about it. Would you expect your car insurance to pay for your gasoline and routine maintenance? That'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? So when then do people expect their health insurance to pay for routine physicals? Why is it necessary to put that layer of bureaucracy between the consumer and the cost of the product being consumed?
Go read this article. I had it featured in my journal for awhile. It talks about the structure of our health care system and explains a lot of these concepts better than I can.
After the attacks he had the kind of national solidarity and unity that any president would dream of having.
So what? You think having 90% approval ratings and national solidarity compensates for the fact that we were looking at a long war that would eventually consume billions of dollars and thousands of American lives? You think having to spend your Presidency worrying about the next attack is really better than having a domestic Presidency?
And yes, I remember the 2000 campaign. We got exactly what I expected - an incompetent, religio-fascist idiot - and we paid for it in the years following 9/11.
You don't even know what fascism is.
This seems to be a clear use of the prize to give Obama some more political firepower to try to ram through his agenda
Good luck with that. It may help on the international scene (although I doubt it) but it's going to be nothing but a hindrance domestically. The only Americans who are remotely impressed by this are the supporters that were already drooling over every word that he had to say. Everybody else is either rolling their eyes (independents) or planning on using it against him (Republicans).
Yes, that's exactly right. If someone has announced his intention to kill you and has the means to carry out that threat then you kill him first. You didn't make the decision that someone was going to die -- he did. All you did was ensure that it wasn't you. I'm sorry if that offends your sensibility.
Have we caught Bin Laden yet?
Irrelevant.
So you're saying that US policy in the 80's was based on a threat to a few slavic states in Europe?
No, I'm saying that claiming the USSR wasn't a threat is either extremely naive or trolling. Based on your response I'm going to have to go with trolling.
We were told the Russians were going to nuke the crap out of us
Which wasn't that hard to believe, given their actions in Eastern Europe and theirhistory of aggression.
Pragmatically speaking the cold war in America wasn't about any countries but the US and Russia.
The Cold War 'in America'? WTF are you talking about? The Cold War was a global one. It was waged on every single continent and touched virtually every single nation.
Besides, the point is that there's always a shapeless threat. Today it's "Terrorism,"
Terrorism is a threat. To think otherwise is naive. I do agree with you that there always seems to be something that we are supposed to be worried about but you ignored my agreement in favor of continuing your flower child rant about the evils of "an eye for eye".
Just something for the plebes to get worked up about so political leaders can manufacture clout.
See, that's where my agreement ends. I will agree that certain politicians exploit threats in order to further their own agenda. You seem to think that the threats themselves are completely manufactured. I don't know how to respond to that, other than to suggest that you put the bong down and try looking at the geopolitical situation once you sober up a bit.
Umm, I'm a student of history. I'm well aware of what happened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I just don't get how not being a jerk earns you a Nobel peace prize.
The appropriate response to terrorism isn't terrorism.
The appropriate response to terrorism is to find those responsible and kill them.
it is indeed possible to be against war (especially unjustified as in the past decade)
What war was "unjustified"? Afghanistan was a response to the government of that country harboring an organization that murdered 3,000 people. Iraq was a response to a decade of ignoring UN security council resolutions and international law. Neither was "unjustified". I'd make the case that Iraq was unwise but unjustified seems like a bit of a stretch.
In the past it was the Russians or the Communists, or something else. Always a nameless shapeless threat which is used as excuse for committing unspeakable acts.
Ask someone from Poland or the Baltic States if Russia was a "nameless, shapeless threat". I understand the sentiment that you are trying to express but dismissing the USSR as a non-threat is naive at best and trolling at worst.
How many millions are going to die if (when?) Pakistan falls apart and her nuclear arsenal winds up in the hands of terrorists? I really hope we have a plan to disarm that country when the time comes.......
He waged two wars killing millions
Citation needed.
Palin was near declaring war on Russia during the election process.
Did I miss the part of the US Constitution that says a candidate for Vice President can declare war?
Actually the 22nd amendment "voted" him out, but why let a little detail like that detract from a good Bush rant?
The same people are telling you there are WMD's in Iran. You should know better than to blindly believe it.
Nobody is saying that there are WMD's in Iran. What is happening is that a lot of countries (including hard core conservative war-mongering nations like France, Germany and the UK) are saying that they are attempting to obtain either nuclear weapons or breakout capacity. It's interesting that you would throw stones on this matter though while ignoring the fact that Europe is actually pursuing it more aggressively than we are. Did George Bush become the EU President while I wasn't looking or something?
You need it to live, therefore providers can charge pretty much whatever they'd like.
No, providers can charge whatever they'd like because you have no idea what the service actually costs and people have no incentive to argue with them over the price because they aren't paying it to begin with. Do you really think hospitals would get away with charging $40 for dressings (the line item from my recent visit to the ER) if people actually saw that bill and had to pay it?
If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.
I know plenty about how the health care system works and it isn't anything remotely close to a free market. Go read this article in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.
Considering the first year of his predecessor, not doing even one thing could actually in theory be considered doing the right thing at this point..
Oh, c'mon. Let's at least be fair about it. I know that's hard for people to do when the subject matter is George Bush, but honestly, what did he do in his first year that was so bad? The bulk of what I remember about his first year was all domestic issues -- his tax cuts, no child left behind, the tie in the Senate after the Senator Jeffords switched parties, etc, etc. You may disagree with a lot of that domestic policy but tell me, what bearing would it have on the international communities opinion of us?
Now those same people who cried it out back then, are on the other side this time accusing Obama of not doing anything yet..
Yeah, and the Democrats are now the ones using terms like "un-American" to describe those that disagree with their agenda. What's your point, besides all politicians are hypocrites?
On a seperate note, WONDERFUL Sneakers reference in the sig.
The international community would seem to disagree with you and agree with GP.
The international community is happy anytime an American President falls all over himself apologizing for how horrible our country supposedly is. That doesn't mean he's actually done anything to advance the cause of world peace.
And as much as I disagreed with him, you've got to admit that GWB was dealt a pretty shitty hand. Those who remember the 2000 campaign may well remember that he ran on domestic issues. God forbid if we suffer another mass casualty attack -- you think the idealism and international love fest for Obama would long survive the American response to another attack on the scale of 9/11?
Fair enough. So what are his accomplishments on the international scene? He's given a few good speeches. Other than that, exactly what has he accomplished?
This award reeks of political calculation. He was in office for less than two weeks and got nominated? WTF? You can't even really say that they gave it to him because of his grand speeches before the World stage -- because I don't think he had given any of them yet.
Slashdot Mirror
How are you supposed to sort the seeds out of pot on the back of a digital LP?
Stop buying schwag and the problem takes care of itself ;)
I like how you keep saying "we" when NATO is alongside us in Afghanistan and several others are alongside us in Iraq.
How intimately familiar should I be with the constitution of every foreign (for me) country?
I dunno. The Eurotards usually slam Americans when they don't know details about other countries. Why shouldn't we respond in kind? ;)
I guess you've never heard of the 22nd amendment, have you? Rather disappointing for someone with a four digit UID, I must say.....
in which case costs would go way down
What are you basing this assumption on?
the insurance companies are the problem
That's a very liberal way of looking at the problem but it doesn't begin to even scratch the surface of the problem.
Unfortunately it looks like there's not even going to be a public option
Good. Replacing private sector bureaucracy with public sector bureaucracy is no solution at all.
only madatory insurance. Big boon to the insurance industry, nada for ordinary people.
Mandatory insurance doesn't represent a "boon" to the insurance industry. The argument behind mandatory insurance is to get healthy people in the risk people so the average cost of premiums comes down. I don't happen to agree with the notion of the Government taking away my freedom of association but to say that the mandate represents a "boon" to the insurance industry is missing the point.
I'd say huge salaries paid to top insurance company executives is another big reason.
Then you'd be missing the point yet again I'm afraid. You could confiscate the profits of every single health insurance company in this country and you'd only be able to pay for four days of health care for the American people. The health insurance companies themselves are not the problem. The structure of the underlying marketplace is the problem.
Think about it. Would you expect your car insurance to pay for your gasoline and routine maintenance? That'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? So when then do people expect their health insurance to pay for routine physicals? Why is it necessary to put that layer of bureaucracy between the consumer and the cost of the product being consumed?
Go read this article. I had it featured in my journal for awhile. It talks about the structure of our health care system and explains a lot of these concepts better than I can.
It put the people who murdered 3,000 innocent people out of business. That's good enough for me.
Obama is only perpetuating two illegal wars of agression and a global network of 737 military bases.
God, you are a fucking jackass, do you know that?
I have no idea how I wound up on your friends list but do me a favor and remove me so I don't have to see your dribble at +5.
No one has flown planes into any buildings in Europe that I know of.
Yeah, Europe has never suffered an incident of terrorism. It just doesn't happen. Everybody loves them.
I can't believe you got a +5 for this nonsense.
After the attacks he had the kind of national solidarity and unity that any president would dream of having.
So what? You think having 90% approval ratings and national solidarity compensates for the fact that we were looking at a long war that would eventually consume billions of dollars and thousands of American lives? You think having to spend your Presidency worrying about the next attack is really better than having a domestic Presidency?
And yes, I remember the 2000 campaign. We got exactly what I expected - an incompetent, religio-fascist idiot - and we paid for it in the years following 9/11.
You don't even know what fascism is.
This seems to be a clear use of the prize to give Obama some more political firepower to try to ram through his agenda
Good luck with that. It may help on the international scene (although I doubt it) but it's going to be nothing but a hindrance domestically. The only Americans who are remotely impressed by this are the supporters that were already drooling over every word that he had to say. Everybody else is either rolling their eyes (independents) or planning on using it against him (Republicans).
Obama doesn't have the stones to bring about peace that way. More's the pity.
The billions of dollars we spend defending ourselves could instead be spent saving lives
Fixed that for you.
Eye for an eye, eh?
Yes, that's exactly right. If someone has announced his intention to kill you and has the means to carry out that threat then you kill him first. You didn't make the decision that someone was going to die -- he did. All you did was ensure that it wasn't you. I'm sorry if that offends your sensibility.
Have we caught Bin Laden yet?
Irrelevant.
So you're saying that US policy in the 80's was based on a threat to a few slavic states in Europe?
No, I'm saying that claiming the USSR wasn't a threat is either extremely naive or trolling. Based on your response I'm going to have to go with trolling.
We were told the Russians were going to nuke the crap out of us
Which wasn't that hard to believe, given their actions in Eastern Europe and their history of aggression.
Pragmatically speaking the cold war in America wasn't about any countries but the US and Russia.
The Cold War 'in America'? WTF are you talking about? The Cold War was a global one. It was waged on every single continent and touched virtually every single nation.
Besides, the point is that there's always a shapeless threat. Today it's "Terrorism,"
Terrorism is a threat. To think otherwise is naive. I do agree with you that there always seems to be something that we are supposed to be worried about but you ignored my agreement in favor of continuing your flower child rant about the evils of "an eye for eye".
Just something for the plebes to get worked up about so political leaders can manufacture clout.
See, that's where my agreement ends. I will agree that certain politicians exploit threats in order to further their own agenda. You seem to think that the threats themselves are completely manufactured. I don't know how to respond to that, other than to suggest that you put the bong down and try looking at the geopolitical situation once you sober up a bit.
Umm, I'm a student of history. I'm well aware of what happened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I just don't get how not being a jerk earns you a Nobel peace prize.
This is a reflection of the relief felt by the world when the right wing lunatics got kicked out of the White house.
Because replacing them with left wing lunatics is so much better......
In 1989, he was in the position where he could squash the outbreak of Democracy in in Eastern Europe. He refrained from doing so.
His decision to NOT act as his predecessors had done in similar situations made him worthy of the Peace Prize.
Not being a dickhead is all you need to win a Nobel Peace Prize? Where's my prize? Oh, wait..... ;)
Sorry, but you're not in a position to solve hunger, clean up pollution, and bring peace. Obama is.
Obama isn't in a position to "bring peace". Peace, like marriage, requires that both parties are willing to work towards it.
The appropriate response to terrorism isn't terrorism.
The appropriate response to terrorism is to find those responsible and kill them.
it is indeed possible to be against war (especially unjustified as in the past decade)
What war was "unjustified"? Afghanistan was a response to the government of that country harboring an organization that murdered 3,000 people. Iraq was a response to a decade of ignoring UN security council resolutions and international law. Neither was "unjustified". I'd make the case that Iraq was unwise but unjustified seems like a bit of a stretch.
In the past it was the Russians or the Communists, or something else. Always a nameless shapeless threat which is used as excuse for committing unspeakable acts.
Ask someone from Poland or the Baltic States if Russia was a "nameless, shapeless threat". I understand the sentiment that you are trying to express but dismissing the USSR as a non-threat is naive at best and trolling at worst.
You hope he causes war killing millions?
How many millions are going to die if (when?) Pakistan falls apart and her nuclear arsenal winds up in the hands of terrorists? I really hope we have a plan to disarm that country when the time comes.......
He waged two wars killing millions
Citation needed.
Palin was near declaring war on Russia during the election process.
Did I miss the part of the US Constitution that says a candidate for Vice President can declare war?
The military option against Iran's nuclear program is still not off the table.
Why should it be off the table?
You voted bush out, remember?
Actually the 22nd amendment "voted" him out, but why let a little detail like that detract from a good Bush rant?
The same people are telling you there are WMD's in Iran. You should know better than to blindly believe it.
Nobody is saying that there are WMD's in Iran. What is happening is that a lot of countries (including hard core conservative war-mongering nations like France, Germany and the UK) are saying that they are attempting to obtain either nuclear weapons or breakout capacity. It's interesting that you would throw stones on this matter though while ignoring the fact that Europe is actually pursuing it more aggressively than we are. Did George Bush become the EU President while I wasn't looking or something?
You need it to live, therefore providers can charge pretty much whatever they'd like.
No, providers can charge whatever they'd like because you have no idea what the service actually costs and people have no incentive to argue with them over the price because they aren't paying it to begin with. Do you really think hospitals would get away with charging $40 for dressings (the line item from my recent visit to the ER) if people actually saw that bill and had to pay it?
If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.
I know plenty about how the health care system works and it isn't anything remotely close to a free market. Go read this article in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.
Yeah, I guess I did fuck that up. Mod AC +1 grammar nazi who nonetheless missed the point :)
Considering the first year of his predecessor, not doing even one thing could actually in theory be considered doing the right thing at this point..
Oh, c'mon. Let's at least be fair about it. I know that's hard for people to do when the subject matter is George Bush, but honestly, what did he do in his first year that was so bad? The bulk of what I remember about his first year was all domestic issues -- his tax cuts, no child left behind, the tie in the Senate after the Senator Jeffords switched parties, etc, etc. You may disagree with a lot of that domestic policy but tell me, what bearing would it have on the international communities opinion of us?
Now those same people who cried it out back then, are on the other side this time accusing Obama of not doing anything yet..
Yeah, and the Democrats are now the ones using terms like "un-American" to describe those that disagree with their agenda. What's your point, besides all politicians are hypocrites?
On a seperate note, WONDERFUL Sneakers reference in the sig.
Thanks :)
The international community would seem to disagree with you and agree with GP.
The international community is happy anytime an American President falls all over himself apologizing for how horrible our country supposedly is. That doesn't mean he's actually done anything to advance the cause of world peace.
And as much as I disagreed with him, you've got to admit that GWB was dealt a pretty shitty hand. Those who remember the 2000 campaign may well remember that he ran on domestic issues. God forbid if we suffer another mass casualty attack -- you think the idealism and international love fest for Obama would long survive the American response to another attack on the scale of 9/11?
Fair enough. So what are his accomplishments on the international scene? He's given a few good speeches. Other than that, exactly what has he accomplished?
This award reeks of political calculation. He was in office for less than two weeks and got nominated? WTF? You can't even really say that they gave it to him because of his grand speeches before the World stage -- because I don't think he had given any of them yet.