How do you figure? Some of these regulations mirror the auto insurance industry regulations. The logical outcome of forcing restrictions on companies, and who they must do business with is simply that their operating costs go up, and they charge more (right now, insurance makes 2-3% profit margin while pharmaceuticals make huge excesses of money off of lifestyle drugs).
Anyway, this reform bill has everything to do with politicians wanting more control over the system and nothing to do with actually lowering prices. Government is a legalized mob, practically by definition -- it's just that we as a people are willing to listen to it. If you are suggesting those who put this bill into play did so for any kind of altruistic reason -- consider the context of their political ambitions (no one goes into politics to help people, they go into politics to control people).
That would make perfect sense if the government had a set budget that it could never breach.. as it stands, it's in the interest of the government to never cut anyone off -- it gives them political control and votes from those who fear they could not be insured otherwise.
However, by removing the bottom line it turns the system into a ponzi scheme where everyone loses out (the money just isn't there). The government has the same issues with providing healthcare, but the deficits are masked and passed down in terms of inflation where they would instead lead to bankruptcy.
I resonate with your humanistic concerns, but believe that lowering prices by increasing natural competition (removing the regulations helping insurance companies establish monopolies) ought to be the immediate concern.
To be honest, I don't know enough about the regulations in the health insurance field to say how much or how little they affect a small business health insurance start-up. I can say that there's more to it than just regulations, though. Health insurance, like any insurance, is a managed risk pool. The bigger the pool, the more risk you can take on. A small business insurance provider simply could not compete with the established, larger corporations as payouts would probably have to be capped at lower levels.
Yes, but there are plenty of poor "big insurance"
choices right now. It is rare and an exception to find good coverage at a reasonable price. It is impossible to get individual insurance as good as that provided via an employer, because of government regulation. They are simply not allowed to provide it! What's more - I can't believe this is blamed on greed! Health insurance gets an average of 2-3% profit, which is below standard corporate profit. It is simply not a very profitable business, and its problems are not due to greed - they are lack of competition -- again, because of regulations which were meant to stabilize insurance according to insurance companies.
Compare the health insurance industry to the pharmaceutical industry. Vastly different -- pharma is among the most profitable (nearly as profitable as the oil industry is right now -- ). And is anyone cracking down on them? Nope. McCain and Obama have been helping them with healthcare funding under the pretense of reform -- in fact, one such deal in 2009 involved lower prices of drugs for government officials -- and the elderly, by the PhRMA.
As for the short-sighted executives -- I've seen no such thing in health insurance. How about Banking? Oh hell yes! And guess who got bailed out? Sure there's a lot of fuss about bonuses right now, but this is both after the fact and more bark than bite.
You've provided no source and I haven't been able to find one for you, so I can't speak to the budgeting of Medicare (though I've always been told that it historically comes in under budget). However, in terms of relative GDP, $12 billion in 1965 is approx. $97 billion in 1990; $13.5 billion in 1965 would be about $110 billion in 1990 so it doesn't seem all that bad to me--off by 12% for a 25-year prediction.
Really? Are you sure the majority of people do not want this? Actually you could be right about this specific bill since it's decidedly not universal healthcare which we were all promised. As you may recall, Obama made a big deal about universal healthcare during his campaign and a majority of people voted for him, leading to his election. If you listened to the conservatives, you'd think that they were the majority, that some of them (apparently) begrudgingly voted for Obama, and then were absolutely shocked when he started doing the things he said he'd do if elected. Despite what you may hear on oxymoronically-titled conservative radio shows like "The Wilkow Majority," you're not necessarily the majority.
It's amazing to me how #2 tends to mean it's time to roll out a new bullshit regulation on top of an enormous stack of previous bullshit regulations.
"most due to the greedy practices of the health insurance industry"
This is facetious - lobbyists for the health insurance industry have helped to foster the corporatist sentiment in American government. What we have now is the result of previous failures, which were instituted to reduce competition in that particular market (in the name of stability). The natural result of this is that prices have soared. The issue is not greedy companies, because frankly that would make them concerned about budgeting wisely -- the issue is that it's impossible to have a small business step in and offer insurance because of government regulations. If you want to blame someone: blame corrupt politicians who set up the industry for failure in order to step in and pick up the reins.
The bill describes changes which attempt to solve these problems by removing loopholes which allow insurance companies to deny or drop coverage, and also "guarantee" coverage by making it mandatory. You want this to fail.
You see, this is the provided justification. There are many hidden provisions within the bill just increasing other important taxes. There is no smart budget cutting happening. There are increased social security taxes, medicare taxes, home care taxes (CLASS Act). There is an obvious lie associated with these, in that these taxes are supposed to be kept for their respective programs, whereas they are going to go toward paying for Obamacare. Forcing companies to hold on to people who are too expensive will make things more expensive. Do you really think it will drive costs down to mandate these things? Do you think the government will step in and magically create money? It's a sad reality that some people are too expensive to reasonably insure right now -- if the government picks up the tag, the costs are passed on to the taxpayer either as taxes or inflation.
The source of some people being so expensive comes down to a number of problems, also related to health care regulations. Every doctor is required to pay insanely expensive malpractice insurance (which doesn't even kick in until they pay $300,000 of their own money). The government-supported monopolies within healthcare are EXTREMELY bloated, and pass the cost on to their constituents - there was recently the media-exposed case of $1,200 surgical staplers which have become the standard fare.
The situation is like this: The prices are insane because the market is sick and distorted. The market is sick because of government regulations put in via health care lobbyists, which were intended to create stability within the market and help them by reducing competition from "untrustworthy" insurance companies. These regulations helped create the virtual collapse we're at now, of course the answer from the government is more government restrictions (which are already guaranteed to drive prices up further). Many politicians stand to gain great power through maneuvering like this because they have their own personal and electoral connections -- they can easily amend something like this once it exists. In fact, the upcoming "fix" to the bill being passed Sunday will decrease taxes and increase the coverage! Wtf?
Please, explain to me how it makes sense to have 10 years of taxes pay for 6 years of coverage. This is how it was actually budgeted -- and this is with fuzzy math like the nested provisions i listed!
The CBO report is blatantly wrong on two accounts: using their method for the decade after the first, we will be losing 100 billion+ yearly (they are relying on many successful budget cuts including a great amount from Medicare which has NEVER been able to cut their budget significantly). Secondly, they are trusting the figures provided (like the Medicare number) and not account for historically proven mis-budgeting. In the 60s, w
Personally, I want what the Obama Administration does to fail simply because they keep trying to do stupid things in a weak way -- as soon as they support something rational I will support them in it.
Please, read the whole sentence. If a murder is out to kill someone, I want him to fail. If a mugger is out to steal money, I want him to fail. If a business is exploiting people to increase their profit margin, I want them to fail. If a politician is creating a flawed system under false pretenses which is going to waste taxpayer money, I want him to fail. If Obama is going to bankrupt our monetary base further, I want him to fail.
Do you see? It's GOOD to want bad things to fail. Because I want a thief to stop stealing, does not mean I think the thief is evil and must be put to death. Because someone does wrong, does not mean I think they are evil, but it most certainly means I do not support them!
I don't understand why you think that the government won't reflect this disparity? It will only cover however much everyone pays for it, and will cost a ton of money to even just administrate. There's a limit on how much money can be spent, exactly like in a private business. The major difference is that government can monetize its debt! If things get too expensive for the government, it will pay the costs via proxy and thereby inflate currency itself.
I often wonder how many people realize that inflation is a form of taxation, and a sign of poor fiscal policy..
Somalia is not an anarchy in any form, it is a group of warlords fighting for dominance (and besides which, it's interesting that their current state of affairs is actually much better than it was 10 years ago). I don't understand the vapidity of these Somalia arguments that keep popping up. I'm not talking about some bullshit idealist system where all people are happy and do everything altruistically because they can.
I will agree to your bet, but you might as well be betting me that America will raise an army of pegasus and successfully conquer the world. For this bet to be honest, we need to decide on what constitutes HCR: if it involves more regulation and more mandates then I can guarantee you it will drive costs up. If it involves destroying the mandates and regulations giving private insurance forms of monopoly, then I will say it drives costs down. Again, I am all for reform if it involves freeing up the insurance market and see this as positive change.
A system of governance that is based upon "what is good for me personally" is simple anarchy.
No, that's actually just the typical form of government. Government is tainted by having government officials, politics, and special interests. Anarchy is the opposite of government, eg: free market.
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
There's nothing wrong with making money helping people get well. You're missing something important in your argument - people have choices, and are not corn being raised in the fields. If your doctor sucks, you find another and get educated about health (you might find that pharmaceuticals are mostly treatment rather than cure and going to the doctor is overrated by today's society).
If you also think that the government will help people stay healthy, just look at its record with the pharmaceutical industry(in case you did not know, they are very good pals and help each other profit). It is completely in the ethos and history of government to recommend pharmaceuticals above exercise and good diet, because they make money with pharmaceuticals! They stand to gain nothing when people take care of themselves.
Please, keep in mind that government wants to secure its own importance and money, and to grow as if it were actually creating something new.
I don't understand what you mean? On the one hand, Obama has not tried anything fiscally or economically sound, on the other hand neither have the Republicans for a very very very long time. Personally, I want what the Obama Administration does to fail simply because they keep trying to do stupid things in a weak way -- as soon as they support something rational I will support them in it. Your argument would appear to be anti-government corruption, and yet pro-Obama Administration? You just can't separate the two!
It's not fair to compare to private ensurers as they are now -- there is a clear corporatist slant to how Washington has operated for a long time, and frankly -- lobbyists from private insurance have put in a wealth of distortion on the market courtesy of the government. This particular situation highlights two things: the greediness of companies to ensure their own survival (a constant) and the corruption of government (another constant).
It's certain that more government intervention is going to both increase overall healthcare costs (via insurance costs) and drive overall healthcare quality down because that's what it always does and what it has been doing steadily.
True reform would not be imposing more restrictions, regulations, and bullshit state-invented rights -- it would be repealing what drives healthcare to be expensive in the first place (many many things).
I don't understand why a government, any government, would want information on the unique aspects of an acid that is found in my every cell... Why the fuck does the government -- an imperfect organization which by definition rules by force -- explicitly deserve an in-depth profile of my biologic basis? Even if it were voluntary -- imagine how easy it would be to pressure organizations into making it mandatory (raise the overall tax, give organizations which only employ Gene-mapped employees a tax break).
I don't care what this student thinks is best, I DO care that the president of the USA agrees to no small degree.
This line sticks out like a sore thumb: "I am a supporter of free markets and capitalism, but at times we need the government."
You are describing the problems of a corporatist, mercantilist market - not a free market (scientology only has power because they exploit the regulations to their advantage). Furthermore, you are implicitly equating markets with government, which are separate entities very often found intertwined (this is done by the government).
"Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions." -- Your willingness to pay for what you want is indeed fundamental to all people -- and is the basis of a free market (it is driven by human nature itself).
Yes, it is human nature to abuse absolute and arbitrary power (because it does not have a basis in a reality that a human can relate to). Critics of organizations like the NSA are not critics of security, they are critics of individual schmutzes making decisions on the behalf of a nation of people. It is not the place of government to protect the public from an imaginary threat. This article talks about the US planning to take down wikileaks, not for any concrete reason but only because the practice does not suit them!
Once something has been fully documented and around long enough to be successfully leaked, chances are it's not going to hurt national security (but will certainly hurt people in positions of power). Additionally, wikileaks exposes fraud and criminality above all -- it does not list security checkpoints and schedules of all airports or some such actual security-related issue.
As per your jab at simplicity - the principles of this situation are plain and clear, the interpretations can get as muddy as you would like.
PS: Governments DO keep secrets for the hell of it (just not all the time)-- because they can
Universities and Health Insurance companies are giant companies. Look to the Board of Directors of any University: you will find they own most of the business around and on campus. Even non-profit companies are all about profit for the people controlling them. While this isn't always true, it typically is and indicates that the system is not structured accordingly. Anyway, I don't see why the government ought to be helping companies get more profit or maximize their funding, whatever their perceived usefulness is.
Sure it's part of the design, it's certainly "working as intended", but it's fundamentally flawed because it's partially responsible for fostering an us-and-them attitude. For me, a great achievement would be an educational system which teaches what a person is interested in learning, not a universal system of education which is about standards and what you "should" know. For the "smart kids", this would be an enormous boost. For the "dumb kids," it would give them the skills they want, and help to foster more interest in some aspect of the world.
"Dumb" kids are dumb because of social and parental conditioning, not because "that's just the way they are". Barring a physically-rooted mental handicap, a child can become very intelligent in at least a couple of ways. A smart and dedicated factory worker will be able to move up and out of such a social position.
If there were enough smart people, society would reflect this property and more menial tasks would be automated when possible (especially since they're cheaper in the long run, and as products they help make money).
Kids who are smart already, in a system which doesn't really want to teach children in an open and honest way, will slowly become socially indoctrinated and corrupt, because their directed, limited accomplishments amount to maintaining the status quo.
That's an interesting situation, it's true -- but I don't think it really affects the social dynamics of money flowing in.
In a situation like that, you see money being distributed extremely unequally. The greater the disparity between slave owner quality of life and slave quality of life, the closer the slaves get to revolting.
When it comes down to it, the slaves have a choice - revolt, or continue being a slave.
You consider Keynesian economics to not be an experiment?
Free Markets work well for the economy - there really isn't any way around this, though politically they are a burden and laypeople don't trust them because they were raised differently.
Consider first what a regulation or trade restriction actually is - an artificial attempt to control a market. These attempts are always political and for the benefit of a particular group. If you believe in equality or freedom, this is already a moral injustice. Regardless of the nature or effect of these regulations, they are ALWAYS short-term solutions.
As far as America is concerned, the entire system is fubar, and to consider it a free market is outright stupid.
For those people, do you know what the alternatives are? There really aren't very many and they all are to live in poverty.
It sucks, but an undeveloped nation is an undeveloped nation. Every developed nation has gone through a ton of bullshit and squalor before it got to where it is.
Free trade benefits everyone, but it requires a little bit of faith in the process. As soon as you get money flowing in to an undeveloped nation, you are providing a catalyst for their society to mature. When things get too expensive for a developed country - they will leave. However, you will have established a market in the undeveloped country and helped its development.
In the case of "Fair Trade," you are inspiring a stagnant economy by singling out individual sources to receive relatively enormous amounts of money. Social change won't be inspired by over-compensating a few people.
What does this mean : "What we should be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy " ?
Why should we care about producing democracy? I think it's more about having people get what they want. Frankly, I hate Democracy because it's anti-individual by its nature.
It can be "taught" - at its core it's a purely emotional state. Whether you think something is interesting, boring or stupid - it's all dependent on your psychological state (the foundation of which is your emotional state). If you always support the growth a person's awareness in a way that they can feel safe in the world - you can be sure of raising an inquisitive person.
Unschooling is a powerful concept, and also dangerous. If you have good parents who encourage growth in *all* directions but can still maintain a structure and discipline, then the child will inevitably grow to be inquisitive and engaged. This is the *ideal* situation for education.
If you have dogmatic parents, you're better off at school because you can grow independent and teach yourself what you need to know. This is not entirely ideal, but definitely offers room for growth.
That said, everyone needs to be stimulated by something new, and for children thats easy - given that multiplication is used in daily life, it's guaranteed to come up.
In my opinion, the most important part of starting a computer language is cementing an interest and desire in using it.
For the beginner, it is ideal because it is an extremely visual way to work (out of the Flash IDE at least -- you could get a free version using the Flex framework if you wanted but it would be running out of Eclipse).
AS3 is easy to use since it can be used as a basic scripting language. It can be used totally as an OOP language as well. The transition of working on the "timeline" and moving to Document Classes offers a lot of practical education.
It's in high demand professionally, and once you get really good with it on a OOP basis -- you are well on your way to understanding many other languages.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you figure? Some of these regulations mirror the auto insurance industry regulations. The logical outcome of forcing restrictions on companies, and who they must do business with is simply that their operating costs go up, and they charge more (right now, insurance makes 2-3% profit margin while pharmaceuticals make huge excesses of money off of lifestyle drugs).
Anyway, this reform bill has everything to do with politicians wanting more control over the system and nothing to do with actually lowering prices. Government is a legalized mob, practically by definition -- it's just that we as a people are willing to listen to it. If you are suggesting those who put this bill into play did so for any kind of altruistic reason -- consider the context of their political ambitions (no one goes into politics to help people, they go into politics to control people).
That would make perfect sense if the government had a set budget that it could never breach.. as it stands, it's in the interest of the government to never cut anyone off -- it gives them political control and votes from those who fear they could not be insured otherwise.
However, by removing the bottom line it turns the system into a ponzi scheme where everyone loses out (the money just isn't there). The government has the same issues with providing healthcare, but the deficits are masked and passed down in terms of inflation where they would instead lead to bankruptcy.
I resonate with your humanistic concerns, but believe that lowering prices by increasing natural competition (removing the regulations helping insurance companies establish monopolies) ought to be the immediate concern.
To be honest, I don't know enough about the regulations in the health insurance field to say how much or how little they affect a small business health insurance start-up. I can say that there's more to it than just regulations, though. Health insurance, like any insurance, is a managed risk pool. The bigger the pool, the more risk you can take on. A small business insurance provider simply could not compete with the established, larger corporations as payouts would probably have to be capped at lower levels.
Yes, but there are plenty of poor "big insurance" choices right now. It is rare and an exception to find good coverage at a reasonable price. It is impossible to get individual insurance as good as that provided via an employer, because of government regulation. They are simply not allowed to provide it! What's more - I can't believe this is blamed on greed! Health insurance gets an average of 2-3% profit, which is below standard corporate profit. It is simply not a very profitable business, and its problems are not due to greed - they are lack of competition -- again, because of regulations which were meant to stabilize insurance according to insurance companies.
Compare the health insurance industry to the pharmaceutical industry. Vastly different -- pharma is among the most profitable (nearly as profitable as the oil industry is right now -- ). And is anyone cracking down on them? Nope. McCain and Obama have been helping them with healthcare funding under the pretense of reform -- in fact, one such deal in 2009 involved lower prices of drugs for government officials -- and the elderly, by the PhRMA.
As for the short-sighted executives -- I've seen no such thing in health insurance. How about Banking? Oh hell yes! And guess who got bailed out? Sure there's a lot of fuss about bonuses right now, but this is both after the fact and more bark than bite.
You've provided no source and I haven't been able to find one for you, so I can't speak to the budgeting of Medicare (though I've always been told that it historically comes in under budget). However, in terms of relative GDP, $12 billion in 1965 is approx. $97 billion in 1990; $13.5 billion in 1965 would be about $110 billion in 1990 so it doesn't seem all that bad to me--off by 12% for a 25-year prediction.
A source: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/ I don't know how you are calculating inflation (it is not a linear or simply process), because in this kind of case there will be many imperfections. The inflation rate itself was definitely influenced by debt incurred by Medicaid failures.
Really? Are you sure the majority of people do not want this? Actually you could be right about this specific bill since it's decidedly not universal healthcare which we were all promised. As you may recall, Obama made a big deal about universal healthcare during his campaign and a majority of people voted for him, leading to his election. If you listened to the conservatives, you'd think that they were the majority, that some of them (apparently) begrudgingly voted for Obama, and then were absolutely shocked when he started doing the things he said he'd do if elected. Despite what you may hear on oxymoronically-titled conservative radio shows like "The Wilkow Majority," you're not necessarily the majority.
Recent polling does not show this kind of reform is wanted. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform .. I don't listen to partisan news radio, it is all trash.
I'm sure you're a fine guy/gal in Real Life but my first encounter wit
"most due to the greedy practices of the health insurance industry" This is facetious - lobbyists for the health insurance industry have helped to foster the corporatist sentiment in American government. What we have now is the result of previous failures, which were instituted to reduce competition in that particular market (in the name of stability). The natural result of this is that prices have soared. The issue is not greedy companies, because frankly that would make them concerned about budgeting wisely -- the issue is that it's impossible to have a small business step in and offer insurance because of government regulations. If you want to blame someone: blame corrupt politicians who set up the industry for failure in order to step in and pick up the reins.
You see, this is the provided justification. There are many hidden provisions within the bill just increasing other important taxes. There is no smart budget cutting happening. There are increased social security taxes, medicare taxes, home care taxes (CLASS Act). There is an obvious lie associated with these, in that these taxes are supposed to be kept for their respective programs, whereas they are going to go toward paying for Obamacare. Forcing companies to hold on to people who are too expensive will make things more expensive. Do you really think it will drive costs down to mandate these things? Do you think the government will step in and magically create money? It's a sad reality that some people are too expensive to reasonably insure right now -- if the government picks up the tag, the costs are passed on to the taxpayer either as taxes or inflation.
The source of some people being so expensive comes down to a number of problems, also related to health care regulations. Every doctor is required to pay insanely expensive malpractice insurance (which doesn't even kick in until they pay $300,000 of their own money). The government-supported monopolies within healthcare are EXTREMELY bloated, and pass the cost on to their constituents - there was recently the media-exposed case of $1,200 surgical staplers which have become the standard fare.
The situation is like this: The prices are insane because the market is sick and distorted. The market is sick because of government regulations put in via health care lobbyists, which were intended to create stability within the market and help them by reducing competition from "untrustworthy" insurance companies. These regulations helped create the virtual collapse we're at now, of course the answer from the government is more government restrictions (which are already guaranteed to drive prices up further). Many politicians stand to gain great power through maneuvering like this because they have their own personal and electoral connections -- they can easily amend something like this once it exists. In fact, the upcoming "fix" to the bill being passed Sunday will decrease taxes and increase the coverage! Wtf?
Please, explain to me how it makes sense to have 10 years of taxes pay for 6 years of coverage. This is how it was actually budgeted -- and this is with fuzzy math like the nested provisions i listed!
The CBO report is blatantly wrong on two accounts: using their method for the decade after the first, we will be losing 100 billion+ yearly (they are relying on many successful budget cuts including a great amount from Medicare which has NEVER been able to cut their budget significantly). Secondly, they are trusting the figures provided (like the Medicare number) and not account for historically proven mis-budgeting. In the 60s, w
Please, read the whole sentence. If a murder is out to kill someone, I want him to fail. If a mugger is out to steal money, I want him to fail. If a business is exploiting people to increase their profit margin, I want them to fail. If a politician is creating a flawed system under false pretenses which is going to waste taxpayer money, I want him to fail. If Obama is going to bankrupt our monetary base further, I want him to fail.
Do you see? It's GOOD to want bad things to fail. Because I want a thief to stop stealing, does not mean I think the thief is evil and must be put to death. Because someone does wrong, does not mean I think they are evil, but it most certainly means I do not support them!
I don't understand why you think that the government won't reflect this disparity? It will only cover however much everyone pays for it, and will cost a ton of money to even just administrate. There's a limit on how much money can be spent, exactly like in a private business. The major difference is that government can monetize its debt! If things get too expensive for the government, it will pay the costs via proxy and thereby inflate currency itself.
I often wonder how many people realize that inflation is a form of taxation, and a sign of poor fiscal policy..
Somalia is not an anarchy in any form, it is a group of warlords fighting for dominance (and besides which, it's interesting that their current state of affairs is actually much better than it was 10 years ago). I don't understand the vapidity of these Somalia arguments that keep popping up. I'm not talking about some bullshit idealist system where all people are happy and do everything altruistically because they can.
I will agree to your bet, but you might as well be betting me that America will raise an army of pegasus and successfully conquer the world. For this bet to be honest, we need to decide on what constitutes HCR: if it involves more regulation and more mandates then I can guarantee you it will drive costs up. If it involves destroying the mandates and regulations giving private insurance forms of monopoly, then I will say it drives costs down. Again, I am all for reform if it involves freeing up the insurance market and see this as positive change.
Also, how about we make it 2 years rather than 5?
I think this is the crux of healthcare reform! We ought to be freeing up the system and making true competition possible.
A system of governance that is based upon "what is good for me personally" is simple anarchy.
No, that's actually just the typical form of government. Government is tainted by having government officials, politics, and special interests. Anarchy is the opposite of government, eg: free market.
There's nothing wrong with making money helping people get well. You're missing something important in your argument - people have choices, and are not corn being raised in the fields. If your doctor sucks, you find another and get educated about health (you might find that pharmaceuticals are mostly treatment rather than cure and going to the doctor is overrated by today's society).
If you also think that the government will help people stay healthy, just look at its record with the pharmaceutical industry(in case you did not know, they are very good pals and help each other profit). It is completely in the ethos and history of government to recommend pharmaceuticals above exercise and good diet, because they make money with pharmaceuticals! They stand to gain nothing when people take care of themselves.
Please, keep in mind that government wants to secure its own importance and money, and to grow as if it were actually creating something new.
I don't understand what you mean? On the one hand, Obama has not tried anything fiscally or economically sound, on the other hand neither have the Republicans for a very very very long time. Personally, I want what the Obama Administration does to fail simply because they keep trying to do stupid things in a weak way -- as soon as they support something rational I will support them in it. Your argument would appear to be anti-government corruption, and yet pro-Obama Administration? You just can't separate the two!
It's not fair to compare to private ensurers as they are now -- there is a clear corporatist slant to how Washington has operated for a long time, and frankly -- lobbyists from private insurance have put in a wealth of distortion on the market courtesy of the government. This particular situation highlights two things: the greediness of companies to ensure their own survival (a constant) and the corruption of government (another constant).
It's certain that more government intervention is going to both increase overall healthcare costs (via insurance costs) and drive overall healthcare quality down because that's what it always does and what it has been doing steadily.
True reform would not be imposing more restrictions, regulations, and bullshit state-invented rights -- it would be repealing what drives healthcare to be expensive in the first place (many many things).
I don't understand why a government, any government, would want information on the unique aspects of an acid that is found in my every cell... Why the fuck does the government -- an imperfect organization which by definition rules by force -- explicitly deserve an in-depth profile of my biologic basis? Even if it were voluntary -- imagine how easy it would be to pressure organizations into making it mandatory (raise the overall tax, give organizations which only employ Gene-mapped employees a tax break). I don't care what this student thinks is best, I DO care that the president of the USA agrees to no small degree.
This line sticks out like a sore thumb: "I am a supporter of free markets and capitalism, but at times we need the government." You are describing the problems of a corporatist, mercantilist market - not a free market (scientology only has power because they exploit the regulations to their advantage). Furthermore, you are implicitly equating markets with government, which are separate entities very often found intertwined (this is done by the government). "Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions." -- Your willingness to pay for what you want is indeed fundamental to all people -- and is the basis of a free market (it is driven by human nature itself).
Yes, it is human nature to abuse absolute and arbitrary power (because it does not have a basis in a reality that a human can relate to). Critics of organizations like the NSA are not critics of security, they are critics of individual schmutzes making decisions on the behalf of a nation of people. It is not the place of government to protect the public from an imaginary threat. This article talks about the US planning to take down wikileaks, not for any concrete reason but only because the practice does not suit them!
Once something has been fully documented and around long enough to be successfully leaked, chances are it's not going to hurt national security (but will certainly hurt people in positions of power). Additionally, wikileaks exposes fraud and criminality above all -- it does not list security checkpoints and schedules of all airports or some such actual security-related issue.
As per your jab at simplicity - the principles of this situation are plain and clear, the interpretations can get as muddy as you would like.
PS: Governments DO keep secrets for the hell of it (just not all the time)-- because they can
Universities and Health Insurance companies are giant companies. Look to the Board of Directors of any University: you will find they own most of the business around and on campus. Even non-profit companies are all about profit for the people controlling them. While this isn't always true, it typically is and indicates that the system is not structured accordingly. Anyway, I don't see why the government ought to be helping companies get more profit or maximize their funding, whatever their perceived usefulness is.
Sure it's part of the design, it's certainly "working as intended", but it's fundamentally flawed because it's partially responsible for fostering an us-and-them attitude. For me, a great achievement would be an educational system which teaches what a person is interested in learning, not a universal system of education which is about standards and what you "should" know. For the "smart kids", this would be an enormous boost. For the "dumb kids," it would give them the skills they want, and help to foster more interest in some aspect of the world.
"Dumb" kids are dumb because of social and parental conditioning, not because "that's just the way they are". Barring a physically-rooted mental handicap, a child can become very intelligent in at least a couple of ways. A smart and dedicated factory worker will be able to move up and out of such a social position. If there were enough smart people, society would reflect this property and more menial tasks would be automated when possible (especially since they're cheaper in the long run, and as products they help make money). Kids who are smart already, in a system which doesn't really want to teach children in an open and honest way, will slowly become socially indoctrinated and corrupt, because their directed, limited accomplishments amount to maintaining the status quo.
That's an interesting situation, it's true -- but I don't think it really affects the social dynamics of money flowing in. In a situation like that, you see money being distributed extremely unequally. The greater the disparity between slave owner quality of life and slave quality of life, the closer the slaves get to revolting. When it comes down to it, the slaves have a choice - revolt, or continue being a slave.
You consider Keynesian economics to not be an experiment? Free Markets work well for the economy - there really isn't any way around this, though politically they are a burden and laypeople don't trust them because they were raised differently. Consider first what a regulation or trade restriction actually is - an artificial attempt to control a market. These attempts are always political and for the benefit of a particular group. If you believe in equality or freedom, this is already a moral injustice. Regardless of the nature or effect of these regulations, they are ALWAYS short-term solutions. As far as America is concerned, the entire system is fubar, and to consider it a free market is outright stupid.
For those people, do you know what the alternatives are? There really aren't very many and they all are to live in poverty. It sucks, but an undeveloped nation is an undeveloped nation. Every developed nation has gone through a ton of bullshit and squalor before it got to where it is. Free trade benefits everyone, but it requires a little bit of faith in the process. As soon as you get money flowing in to an undeveloped nation, you are providing a catalyst for their society to mature. When things get too expensive for a developed country - they will leave. However, you will have established a market in the undeveloped country and helped its development. In the case of "Fair Trade," you are inspiring a stagnant economy by singling out individual sources to receive relatively enormous amounts of money. Social change won't be inspired by over-compensating a few people.
What does this mean : "What we should be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy " ? Why should we care about producing democracy? I think it's more about having people get what they want. Frankly, I hate Democracy because it's anti-individual by its nature.
It can be "taught" - at its core it's a purely emotional state. Whether you think something is interesting, boring or stupid - it's all dependent on your psychological state (the foundation of which is your emotional state). If you always support the growth a person's awareness in a way that they can feel safe in the world - you can be sure of raising an inquisitive person. Unschooling is a powerful concept, and also dangerous. If you have good parents who encourage growth in *all* directions but can still maintain a structure and discipline, then the child will inevitably grow to be inquisitive and engaged. This is the *ideal* situation for education. If you have dogmatic parents, you're better off at school because you can grow independent and teach yourself what you need to know. This is not entirely ideal, but definitely offers room for growth. That said, everyone needs to be stimulated by something new, and for children thats easy - given that multiplication is used in daily life, it's guaranteed to come up.
In my opinion, the most important part of starting a computer language is cementing an interest and desire in using it. For the beginner, it is ideal because it is an extremely visual way to work (out of the Flash IDE at least -- you could get a free version using the Flex framework if you wanted but it would be running out of Eclipse). AS3 is easy to use since it can be used as a basic scripting language. It can be used totally as an OOP language as well. The transition of working on the "timeline" and moving to Document Classes offers a lot of practical education. It's in high demand professionally, and once you get really good with it on a OOP basis -- you are well on your way to understanding many other languages.
Why "condemn" ? Yes, the people are ultimately responsible for their government. But condemnation is entirely unnecessary, and frankly degrading.