Letterman is FUBAR

[SK-1]

Lets talk about Rape.

When I read stories like this, I cant help but think how it would be if the roles were reversed, and a Conservative said ANYTHING like this about a Liberal.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/palin-vs-letterman.html


I was a Dave fanatic for many years.
The older Letterman gets , the more of a cunt he becomes.

[FordGT90Concept]

1. It is adult television.
2. Letterman doesn't write most of the jokes, he just "performs" them (like most late night acts).
3. The first was at Alex Rodriguez.
4. The second was at Elliot Spitzer.
5. Both jokes were intended for Bristol, not Willow.
6. Letterman said "daughter," not specifically which. Because Willow was with Palin on that trip, the press assumed Letterman was talking about Willow.

Meh.

Yes, Letterman's staff should have done a little more research. Do I find myself caring? Not really. The more I hear about the Palins the more I grow tired of them.

[WhiteLotus]

That the palins that are deeply religious and don't believe in abortion and then her daughter got knocked up? The government ones?

[ChromeDome]

to quote Steve Martin...."Comedy Is Not Pretty"

someone should tell the Palin's people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. or at least not complain when a few get tossed their way. they are in the public eye...they are fodder for late night comedy fare. politicians always have been

being that Palin's teenage daughter gets pregnant by some loser, delivers a kid, and then comes out for abstinence is a knee slapper right there

the Palin's are a comedy gold mine :D

[WhiteLotus]

gets pregnant by some loser, delivers a kid, and then comes out for abstinence is a knee slapper right there

You're kidding me right? How does that work out... where's the logic?

[ChromeDome]

"do as i say, not as i do"

she made a mistake. NOW SHE MUST WARN OTHERS!!

of course the baby isn't a mistake. just the fun part :/

[DIppyskoodlez]

I was a Dave fanatic for many years.
The older Letterman gets , the more of a cunt he becomes.

I heard the joke.

I got it. (It was clearly intended for the pregnant one...)

They're just trying to get some media coverage.

Attention whores.

Palin is once again proving why she was most definitely a poor choice for VP. Obama makes jokes about himself. Palin shits her pants. The job of the president is Commander in Chief. IMO if you don't have thick enough skin to take a few even slightly remotely crude jokes, I don't want you leading our military or our country.

[SK-1]

1. It is adult television.
2. Letterman doesn't write most of the jokes, he just "performs" them (like most late night acts).
3. The first was at Alex Rodriguez.
4. The second was at Elliot Spitzer.
5. Both jokes were intended for Bristol, not Willow.
6. Letterman said "daughter," not specifically which. Because Willow was with Palin on that trip, the press assumed Letterman was talking about Willow.

Meh.

Yes, Letterman's staff should have done a little more research. Do I find myself caring? Not really. The more I hear about the Palins the more I grow tired of them.

to quote Steve Martin...."Comedy Is Not Pretty"

someone should tell the Palin's people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. or at least not complain when a few get tossed their way. they are in the public eye...they are fodder for late night comedy fare. politicians always have been

being that Palin's teenage daughter gets pregnant by some loser, delivers a kid, and then comes out for abstinence is a knee slapper right there

the Palin's are a comedy gold mine :D

"do as i say, not as i do"

she made a mistake. NOW SHE MUST WARN OTHERS!!

of course the baby isn't a mistake. just the fun part :/

I heard the joke.

I got it. (It was clearly intended for the pregnant one...)

They're just trying to get some media coverage.

Attention whores.

Palin is once again proving why she was most definitely a poor choice for VP. Obama makes jokes about himself. Palin shits her pants. The job of the president is Commander in Chief. IMO if you don't have thick enough skin to take a few even slightly remotely crude jokes, I don't want you leading our military or our country.





Oh. I get it. He was just joking around about Raping an older girl.... Well shit, I feel stupid.

[SK-1]

Attention whores.


Dave just http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-06-11-palin-vs-letterman_N.htm tried to get them (the Palins) on his show to "personally:eek: clarify" his remarks. She told him to fuck himself and they would not go on his trashy show to "UP his ratings"

[From_Nowhere]

Dave just http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-06-11-palin-vs-letterman_N.htm tried to get them (the Palins) on his show to "personally:eek: clarify" his remarks. She told him to fuck himself and they would not go on his trashy show to "UP his ratings"

Lol, yes!

[SK-1]

Lol, yes!
:)


There was a time when Dave was much more A-political. It was a time when he was at his best imo.

But, as he ages (especially after the bypass surgery) he has gotten to be a politically, crotchety old guy:(

Writers? He decides on the jokes that are broadcast,believe me.
His jokes mimic his personality and general take on life. I read the interviews he has given. His only regret I have ever read, was that he was a bit too harsh on McCain during the election. This was said after the election (of course) in some magazine.

[ChromeDome]

Oh. I get it. He was just joking around about Raping an older girl.... Well shit, I feel stupid.
idk i didn't even hear it. all i know is if you can't take the heat....stay out of public life

a joke is a joke. thats it. it might offend some, sure. but it might be funny to others

no harm no foul i say

[SK-1]

idk i didn't even hear it. all i know is if you can't take the heat....stay out of public life

a joke is a joke. thats it. it might offend some, sure. but it might be funny to others

no harm no foul i say

Yes, I cant WAIT till Letterman starts cracking sex jokes about Obamas kids.:D

[FordGT90Concept]

Dave just http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-06-11-palin-vs-letterman_N.htm tried to get them (the Palins) on his show to "personally:eek: clarify" his remarks. She told him to fuck himself and they would not go on his trashy show to "UP his ratings"
Their loss.


His only regret I have ever read, was that he was a bit too harsh on McCain during the election.
McCain canceled his appearance on the Late Show when he suspended his campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/john-mccain-cancels-lette_n_128998.html

McCain went back to the Late Show a few weeks later--saying "I screwed up" many times.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/17/mccain.letterman/index.html

McCain's apology apparently hit a soft spot on Letterman.


Yes, I cant WAIT till Letterman starts cracking sex jokes about Obamas kids.:D
Won't happen. Obama will be out of office before Letterman can use them as ammunition (too young).

[DIppyskoodlez]

Oh. I get it. He was just joking around about Raping an older girl.... Well shit, I feel stupid.

Oh god a joke. Oh her virgin ears!


oh wait, she isn't. :p

[T3hPwn3r3r]

What's wrong with making fun of kids as stupid as the Palins?

[yogurt_21]

Oh. I get it. He was just joking around about Raping an older girl.... Well shit, I feel stupid.

nowhere in the joke does it say rape, that's yours and yours alone.

which begs the question. why are you dreaming about bristol palin being raped?

[DIppyskoodlez]

nowhere in the joke does it say rape, that's yours and yours alone.

which begs the question. why are you dreaming about bristol palin being raped?

QFT.

Theres a movie called Knocked up.

Are you going to get all hissy about it too? Or only when its convenient for you?

[El Fiendo]

nowhere in the joke does it say rape, that's yours and yours alone.
which begs the question. why are you dreaming about bristol palin being raped?

QFT.
Theres a movie called Knocked up.
Are you going to get all hissy about it too? Or only when its convenient for you?


Actually the Palins and most of the media have used 'rape' so its not Sk-1's word. And even if he did not intend the joke to be including the 14 year old and it was simply a mistake that they didn't realize who'd gone to the game, he still should have said 'I'm sorry' as in all his statements that was absent.

[RevengE]

Palins=Fail. That is all

[El Fiendo]

I don't really care one way or another, we've got enough bullshit politicking in Canada that I get my fill not paying attention here. I don't have the time to not pay attention (or adversely pay attention) to politicking elsewhere. Why haven't we lynched them all yet?

[T3hPwn3r3r]

The reason the GOP DOESN'T have much success at the moment is because of people like her. If you are so loyal to American conservatism, why do you adamantly stand by the notoriously radical, corrupt, extremists that brought it down in the first place, SK-1?

This extreme political correctness only further detriments her character in my view at least.

[DIppyskoodlez]

This extreme political correctness only further detriments her character in my view at least.

Extreme political correctness is why Obama showed up on Colbert making fun of his ears, as current president :p

Too much of the mccain advertising was trying/attempting to bash obama. Atleast, thats why my family voted for him last time I asked...

Maybe its time the republicans grow up a bit.

[FordGT90Concept]

Too much of the mccain advertising was trying/attempting to bash obama. Atleast, thats why my family voted for him last time I asked...
Come now. The GOP launched some attack ads like the Obama=Celebrity one. McCain was wouldn't allow a lot of ads like attacking Reverend Wright. 9/10 Obama ads attacked McCain; moreover, 9/10 ads aired across the nation was pro-Obama. Only about 1/100 ads aired attacked Obama compared to 90/100 attacked McCain. The other 9/100 was Obama's ads praising himself like the one that airred on almost all networks the day before the election.

For some reason or another, even Obama's attack ads weren't viewed as attack ads. It was simply brilliant advertising I suppose.

[SK-1]

For some reason or another, even Obama's attack ads weren't viewed as attack ads. It was simply brilliant advertising I suppose.

For some reason? 80% of the media is far left... there is your, "for some reason.":)

As to all the others subscribed to this thread sticking up for Daves (self- admitting) stupid comments about Pailn and her family (Yes I remember the Slutty Stewardess Comment:rolleyes:). I guess it proves something the the right seems to imply at times about Liberal Men.:cool:


To put it bluntly, is anyone said a similar comment about my wife or kid, I would tear their arm off and beat them with it.


I guess the Obama comments about the MEDIA not messing with the WIFE and KIDS is just for him.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90676349

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7bI0RejI_E
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hypocrite !!!!!!!!!!! "The notion that it is ok for the Media to talk about my wife or kids is ABSURD and stupid, these folks should just lay off my family"


And if Palin dresses like a slut WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS????
http://img.techpowerup.org/090613/Capture232.jpg

[farlex]

^^^ How is that slutty? Casual is slutty now? Why did you insist to me that you weren't right SK? Everything you've posted on any of the forums I've seen you post indicates you are quite possibly the most right member of this board, by a lot.

Come now. The GOP launched some attack ads like the Obama=Celebrity one. McCain was wouldn't allow a lot of ads like attacking Reverend Wright. 9/10 Obama ads attacked McCain; moreover, 9/10 ads aired across the nation was pro-Obama. Only about 1/100 ads aired attacked Obama compared to 90/100 attacked McCain. The other 9/100 was Obama's ads praising himself like the one that airred on almost all networks the day before the election.

For some reason or another, even Obama's attack ads weren't viewed as attack ads. It was simply brilliant advertising I suppose.

Are you kidding? You must have somehow erased the memory of the entire last part of McCain's campaign that delt nearly exclusively with questioning Obama's character as opposed to his politics. Damn people for the love of God try, just try to imagine what the other side is like.

[FordGT90Concept]

McCain only outspent Obama in two states. All of the negative ads airred by McCain together wouldn't add up to one negative ad ran by Obama.

McCain was outspent more than $2 to $1:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/

I can't find the diagram that showed who advertised more in each state and by how much.


Character decides an election for about 60% of voters.

[DIppyskoodlez]

And if Palin dresses like a slut WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS????
[IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/090613/Capture232.jpg[IMG]

I'm just going to assume you are still stuck in between 1900 and 1960 with that assumption.

Get with the times plx. :p

You can barely even see ankles, and theres absolutely no cleavage.

Not even remotely "slutty". There's this thing females do these days, called "fashion". Most males in the field are also gay.

You could compare this to mens hobbies such as "cars" and "computers".

McCain only outspent Obama in two states. All of the negative ads airred by McCain together wouldn't add up to one negative ad ran by Obama.

McCain was outspent more than $2 to $1:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/

I can't find the diagram that showed who advertised more in each state and by how much.


Character decides an election for about 60% of voters.

I actually think this was the first election democrats have outspent a republican.

In doing so, you should also compare where the donations came from. If more people favor one candidate, they're more likely to get more donations. Explicitly assuming campaign spending == winnar is hardly viable and you know it.

Are you kidding? You must have somehow erased the memory of the entire last part of McCain's campaign that delt nearly exclusively with questioning Obama's character as opposed to his politics. Damn people for the love of God try, just try to imagine what the other side is like.

QFT. Some of Mccains adds were downright dirty or just distasteful. Repubs pulled the same dirty tricks they try every election, but Obama's administration didn't play even remotely as "dirty". I remember specifically seeing Mccain related ads that were just disgusting.

[WhiteLotus]

Hurray for politics!!!!!!

[FordGT90Concept]

I actually think this was the first election democrats have outspent a republican.

In doing so, you should also compare where the donations came from. If more people favor one candidate, they're more likely to get more donations. Explicitly assuming campaign spending == winnar is hardly viable and you know it.
McCain took public financing, Obama didn't. Obama, therefore, could legally raise much more while McCain was limited by the laws associated with public financing. Obama said he was going to take public financing and didn't; Obama lied. McCain suffered in terms of funding because of it. Good guys always finish last.


QFT. Some of Mccains adds were downright dirty or just distasteful. Repubs pulled the same dirty tricks they try every election, but Obama's administration didn't play even remotely as "dirty". I remember specifically seeing Mccain related ads that were just disgusting.
I can't remember the ad that the Obama ran that had McCain furious (it was attacking Cindy McCain I believe). Obama immediately pulled the ad. McCain and Obama agreed early on that family was off limits.

[DIppyskoodlez]

McCain took public financing, Obama didn't. Obama, therefore, could legally raise much more while McCain was limited by the laws associated with public financing. Obama said he was going to take public financing and didn't; Obama lied. McCain suffered in terms of funding because of it. Good guys always finish last.

"Hey guys, we got like 300 million dollars for this. What should we do with it?"

"Milk the tax payers for every penny like the greedy bastards we are!"


Is essentially what you just said.

the government is $85 million richer, and obama still won. In the end, what's better? An article bashing him for "going back on his word", or effectively assisting the (already patheticly budgetted) government by almost "giving" them their $85 million back?

While your "morals" may have their undies in a twist, he actually did us a favor in the long run. Convenient, or smart?

[ChromeDome]

Letterman :D

[SK-1]

Letterman :D=Douchebag:D

[SK-1]

I'm just going to assume you are still stuck in between 1900 and 1960 with that assumption.
Get with the times plx. :p


She seems stuck somewhere between Pluto and Uranus.
Please show me another person dressed remotely like that pic I posted. I'd sooner gross people out and go naked.:rolleyes:

[SK-1]

Sorry for multi-posting but I missed a page

^^^ How is that slutty? Casual is slutty now? Why did you insist to me that you weren't right SK? Everything you've posted on any of the forums I've seen you post indicates you are quite possibly the most right member of this board, by a lot.


I thought putting people in categories is a Republican trait:confused::confused:

Obama thinks it ok to suck the brain out of late developing child.FTW!
Obama thinks if a child survives a late term abortion attempt, the kid must be left on the stainless steel plate under the operating lights to dry out and die.Yea!
Obama thinks it is fair for a minor to go out of state and get an abortion WITHOUT parental consent. Yea!

Because I do not go "lock-n-step" with Obama, I MUST be as far right as can be,.....right?

Not hardly my friend. I did not even vote for McCain, or any Republicans locally in the last election. Oops!

This forum is relativity new. Do not worry , I will be kicking the Republicans in the nuts soon.
Jesus, even my flippin avitar makes fun of PALIN AND Obama (in case you missed it):p

Now I am going to a buddies house to "celebrate" scoring tickets to 4 Phish shows this summer! Look out Chalice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalice_(pipe) , here I come~~!!!
Just a few more Republican traits of mine?:rolleyes:

[farlex]

I thought putting people in categories is a Republican trait:confused::confused:

Obama thinks it ok to suck the brain out of late developing child.FTW!
Obama thinks if a child survives a late term abortion attempt, the kid must be left on the stainless steel plate under the operating lights to dry out and die.Yea!
Obama thinks it is fair for a minor to go out of state and get an abortion WITHOUT parental consent. Yea!

Because I do not go "lock-n-step" with Obama, I MUST be as far right as can be,.....right?

Not hardly my friend. I did not even vote for McCain, or any Republicans locally in the last election. Oops!

This forum is relativity new. Do not worry , I will be kicking the Republicans in the nuts soon.
Jesus, even my flippin avitar makes fun of PALIN AND Obama (in case you missed it):p

Now I am going to a buddies house to "celebrate" scoring tickets to 4 Phish shows this summer! Look out Chalice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalice_(pipe) , here I come~~!!!
Just a few more Republican traits of mine?:rolleyes:

Hey Phans can be right-wingers. :D Did you see they did a YEM Wilson sandwich last night at the roo, good stuff I'd bet.

Anyway everything socio-political I've ever seen you post dating back to the Global Warming TPU thread to this thread you have taken a very decidedly right-wing stance on it, and here at GPU you seem to almost be on a personal mission to discredit Obama. Hey I don't particularly like the guy either, but then again I don't remember the last president I like, perhaps I'm just complacent now. At any rate you seem determined to spin things toward the right. I believe you may be in political denial. :D

[T3hPwn3r3r]

ITT we discover SK-1 is a conservative preacher-politician from the early 19th century.



"Obama thinks it ok to suck the brain out of late developing child.FTW!
Obama thinks if a child survives a late term abortion attempt, the kid must be left on the stainless steel plate under the operating lights to dry out and die.Yea!
Obama thinks it is fair for a minor to go out of state and get an abortion WITHOUT parental consent. Yea!"

- I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

[SK-1]

ITT we discover SK-1 is a conservative preacher-politician from the early 19th century.



"Obama thinks it ok to suck the brain out of late developing child.FTW!
Obama thinks if a child survives a late term abortion attempt, the kid must be left on the stainless steel plate under the operating lights to dry out and die.Yea!
Obama thinks it is fair for a minor to go out of state and get an abortion WITHOUT parental consent. Yea!"

- I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

ITT we discover SK1 reads the news and has a concience.
We discover T3hPwn3r3r was aborted.

[SK-1]

Hey Phans can be right-wingers. :D Did you see they did a YEM Wilson sandwich last night at the roo, good stuff I'd bet.


Wooot! No... but I am now!:D

[T3hPwn3r3r]

ITT we discover SK1 reads the news and has a concience.
We discover T3hPwn3r3r was aborted.

I wasn't aborted. I wouldn't be here to be absolutely disgusted by how you make us conservatives look bad if I were.

Also - reading the news is by far the worst way to figure out what's going on in the world.

[SK-1]

ITT we discover SK-1 is a conservative preacher-politician from the early 19th century.



"Obama thinks it ok to suck the brain out of late developing child.FTW!
Obama thinks if a child survives a late term abortion attempt, the kid must be left on the stainless steel plate under the operating lights to dry out and die.Yea!
Obama thinks it is fair for a minor to go out of state and get an abortion WITHOUT parental consent. Yea!"

- I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

I wasn't aborted. I wouldn't be here to be absolutely disgusted by how you make us conservatives look bad if I were.

Also - reading the news is by far the worst way to figure out what's going on in the world.
Your conservative, LOL. And I am an illegal alien.

[FordGT90Concept]

"Hey guys, we got like 300 million dollars for this. What should we do with it?"

"Milk the tax payers for every penny like the greedy bastards we are!"


Is essentially what you just said.

the government is $85 million richer, and obama still won. In the end, what's better? An article bashing him for "going back on his word", or effectively assisting the (already patheticly budgetted) government by almost "giving" them their $85 million back?

While your "morals" may have their undies in a twist, he actually did us a favor in the long run. Convenient, or smart?
A man is only as good as his word.

Public financing was established to level the playing field so that even third party candidates have a fair chance in terms of campaigning funds. Additionally, many laws (like restricting advertisments that effectively destroyed Kerry's bid for office in 2004) are attached to public financing. When you don't take public financing, you throw the rule book out the window.

Public financing is optional on the tax form. No one is required to do it.

How is throwing the rule book out a favor? It was an underhanded tactic that played a major role in deciding the election.

And no, it didn't do any favors. We are now looking at $20 trillion in national debt by the time Obama leaves. The joke is, we haven't even seen the massive, long term spending proposals yet (ehm, universal healthcare) which alone could cost $1 trillion a year. Need I remind you that in fiscal year 2009, the Federal government took in less than $1 trillion and spent $2 trillion.

If he succeeds with his universal healthcare (which will happen because there's nothing on capital hill to stop them) instead of looking at $3.5 trillion in debt for 2009, we're looking at $4.5 trillion.

Is that the change you wanted? Is that the same underhanded tactics we saw early in the campaign (December 2007)?


Let me sum that up...
3,500,000,000,000 Federal Budget 2009
- 85,000,000 Saved
-------------------------
3,499,915,000,000 Deficit

Where's the other 3,499,915,000,000 coming from? I think in politics, we call that "greasing the wheels:" Show a good jester here to get a lot of votes there.

Oh right, that 85 million appears on 2008 balance sheets which wasn't even enough to cover a bridge to nowhere.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Your conservative, LOL. And I am an illegal alien.

I believe in gun rights, capitalism, and anything else the modern, effective conservative would. There are many Republicans who now support gay marriage, abortion and a few government programs because they realize it's a blend and series of sacrifices that make this country work.

Being conservative doesn't mean pushing a Christian agenda and being racist, sexist, and orientationist (proper word?)



Also - I've seen illegal aliens with better grammar than you.

Just because I'm socially moderate does not mean I do not support mainly conservative ideals. There is more to life than a few babies that you'll never have any relation with anyways.

If we can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim civilians in the Middle East and be proud of our accomplishment... call it a "victory"... why can we not get over the fact that some children would be better off not being born rather than being placed into a world of poverty, pain, and suffering.

Adopt, you say? Ever been to an orphanage? Ever been an orphan? I think a field trip is in order for you.

[SK-1]

Also - I've seen illegal aliens with better grammar than you.

why can we not get over the fact that some children would be better off not being born.


Ive got your grammar...

You are ignorant and soulless

[FordGT90Concept]

I believe in gun rights, capitalism, and anything else the modern, effective conservative would. There are many Republicans who now support gay marriage, abortion and a few government programs because they realize it's a blend and series of sacrifices that make this country work.
In the current lexicon, "conservative" is only applicable on fiscal issues. That is, having the courage to say "we don't need that $700-800 billion bailout package simply because we can't afford it."

The issues you listed were the 2008 campaign points for the Republican Party.

The only conseravatives on the Republican Party are those in the House of Representitives. Most of the Republican Senators are far from conservative.


Mike Murphy (Republican Strategist) today made a good point on Republican Party's position on illegal immigration. Right now, they are 9% of the population and that number is expected to climb to 15% by the next election. The Republican Party right now would be good to get 1 latino vote for every two the Democratic Party gets.

What is clear is that the Republican Party that ran in 2008 won't be able to win in 2012. The party needs to evolve in the next three years.

[From_Nowhere]

^Or maybe the stars and planets will align in such a way that Americans will have a good third party candidate to vote for.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Ive got your grammar...

You are ignorant and soleless...

My shoes have great soles, thank you very much.

:p

[T3hPwn3r3r]

In the current lexicon, "conservative" is only applicable on fiscal issues. That is, having the courage to say "we don't need that $700-800 billion bailout package simply because we can't afford it."

The issues you listed were the 2008 campaign points for the Republican Party.

The only conseravatives on the Republican Party are those in the House of Representitives. Most of the Republican Senators are far from conservative.


Mike Murphy (Republican Strategist) today made a good point on Republican Party's position on illegal immigration. Right now, they are 9% of the population and that number is expected to climb to 15% by the next election. The Republican Party right now would be good to get 1 latino vote for every two the Democratic Party gets.

What is clear is that the Republican Party that ran in 2008 won't be able to win in 2012. The party needs to evolve in the next three years.
Exactly what I'm saying. Especially since many people like SK-1 who support book burning, homophobic separation of church and state opponents.

But I don't consider myself liberal in social issues, just logical and realistic - perhaps a bit of a libertarian conservative.

I'm definitely fiscally conservative (though I'll always love GM :( ) by the definition found here:
Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', articulated its principles:

...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

I think we can have programs like socialized education and healthcare without taxing any more than we do now - all we need is accountability for our tax dollars and before even thinking about establishing such programs, gain such accountability and use what we save to recuperate our economy in general.

I guess if I'm not a conservative in the vein of SK-1, I support one thing - the one thing this great nation which has taken my family in and made us members of its own is based on solely:
Freedom.

[FordGT90Concept]

Medicare costs about $600 billion annually.
Social Security costs about $600 billion annually.
Proposed "universal" healthcare costs about $1000 billion annually.

$2.2 trillion per year in just social programs.

Again $1 trillion in revenue for 2008. There's no way about it, this enormous spending requires higher taxes.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

There is a way to go about it, and that's a horribly unrealistic figure.

Germans spend 10% of GDP on universal health care.

Americans spend 16%.

Considering after currency adjustment, Americans, to pay the same amount, should be paying 12.5% AKA we already pay more now than we did then.

This, combined with a drastically slipping on a slippery slope healthcare system in the US make a lot of foreign options seem more appealing.

...and as someone who has experienced it firsthand, I can tell you there's nothing worse about the care. The care is fine, spectacular. Wages are still excellent, treatment is just as effective if not better in many cases. We are the only developed country in the world without universal health care, and behind many of them - all while we pay almost 50% more.

Then again I guess it won't be until your health insurance company tries to flake out and you're stuck with a few bills totaling 500,000$ for operations that didn't even fix anything like my grandmother is - when you realize getting your cancer treated better, for less money, is a GOOD thing.

Again, for something of that sort to work you simply need accountability - something few if any US politicians provide.

[FordGT90Concept]

Then again I guess it won't be until your health insurance company tries to flake out and you're stuck with a few bills totaling 500,000$ for operations that didn't even fix anything like my grandmother is - when you realize getting your cancer treated better, for less money, is a GOOD thing.
The solution there is simple. I've said it before many times and I'll say it again: The healthcare system needs to bid on your healthcare. That is, they need to tell you up front how much it will cost to get done what you need done and you agree to pay that amount. If they bid over, they get some extra cash, if they bid under, they take the loss. That's the way it is supposed to work in a capitalist market but it hasn't ever been done yet. Hell if I know why but until that fundamental change is made, of course costs are going to continue to skyrocket and more and more control falls to insurance companies that only make money when they don't help you. I will never agree to any socialized form of healthcare until the industry is upfront about pricing.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Why do they need to be upfront about pricing if the government tells them "you're getting paid this for this work" and it's free on your end?

[FordGT90Concept]

That's addressing the effect, not the cause. There is no cost-benefit in that equation. Just like the education system right now, there is no incentive to strive for excellance so we have a lot of teachers that couldn't teach a dog to catch and just show up to get their pay check. That's not good for anyone. There's nothing good about mediocrity.


The healthcare field the way it is setup now is advancing like no tomorrow. A lot of surgeries can now be performed through a tiny incision, people can go through extremely painful situations (like passing stones and going through labor) without feeling much pain at all, and we understand the human physiology more than ever before. However, that has all come at a price which lands on the consumers lap. Hospitals are buying equipment and are passing the cost on to the customers. People go check in to a clinic because they are ill and two weeks later, they see thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars worth in bills when they only expected a couple hundred. The advancements were great but ultimately, it hurts the economy because of all the bankrupt patients. People need to make a qualified decision as to whether or not their treatment is worth the price. Moreover, being up front about the cost also allows inter-health care facility competition. If you have two hospitals, for instance, that can both perform an operation you need. If you know that having it done at one rather than the other would save you $10,000, would you not try going to the cheaper one? That means you have to pay less, the insurance company pays less (if you even need insurance anymore), and because the hospital set that price, they are alright with you paying that much.

There's nothing wrong with the service in the USA (except some places are over capacity). The only problem is costs (rather, lack of knowledge of the costs).

[T3hPwn3r3r]

That's addressing the effect, not the cause. There is no cost-benefit in that equation. Just like the education system right now, there is no incentive to strive for excellance so we have a lot of teachers that couldn't teach a dog to catch and just show up to get their pay check. That's not good for anyone. There's nothing good about mediocrity.


The healthcare field the way it is setup now is advancing like no tomorrow. A lot of surgeries can now be performed through a tiny incision, people can go through extremely painful situations (like passing stones and going through labor) without feeling much pain at all, and we understand the human physiology more than ever before. However, that has all come at a price which lands on the consumers lap. Hospitals are buying equipment and are passing the cost on to the customers. People go check in to a clinic because they are ill and two weeks later, they see thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars worth in bills when they only expected a couple hundred. The advancements were great but ultimately, it hurts the economy because of all the bankrupt patients. People need to make a qualified decision as to whether or not their treatment is worth the price. Moreover, being up front about the cost also allows inter-health care facility competition. If you have two hospitals, for instance, that can both perform an operation you need. If you know that having it done at one rather than the other would save you $10,000, would you not try going to the cheaper one? That means you have to pay less, the insurance company pays less (if you even need insurance anymore), and because the hospital set that price, they are alright with you paying that much.

There's nothing wrong with the service in the USA (except some places are over capacity). The only problem is costs (rather, lack of knowledge of the costs).
When was the last time you went to a hospital?

What is your family's yearly income?

You basically just argued FOR universal health care.

The education system though, does need a major overhaul.

[FordGT90Concept]

When was the last time you went to a hospital?
December or January I think. I have an appointment this month as well. I had three surgeries last year and at least two ER visits.


What is your family's yearly income?
No idea. Even if I did, I wouldn't say. :P


You basically just argued FOR universal health care.

The education system though, does need a major overhaul.
Why turn healthcare into what the education system is now? I argued for agreeing to a price before proceeding with anything. Seriously, it wouldn't take more than a month to implement, a year to enforce it, and the benefits of arranging a price before hand could be seen within six months.

There is very, very little competition in terms of pricing among healthcare providers right now. Does capitalism not mean competition is required to sustain the market? The market is going away--a sign that competition isn't at play.

By keeping money hidden, they have effectively created a money vacuum. Just like the government, they go out and buy the latest and greatest equipment and assume they can pass the cost on to customers. Both are running out of control because there is nothing to limit how much they can spend/charge. Government gets away with it by monetizing debt; healthcare providers get away with it by charging exorbitant amounts of money after you have been treated and are legal bound to pay it. You, at no time, get a chance to ask how much will this cost and judge, accurately, if it is more than its worth.

The only time price should not be a concern is when dealing with potential epidemic outbreaks. Spend a lot fast to get the area vaccinated to prevent it from spreading to the populous. It saves a lot in terms of GDP in the long run.

[El Fiendo]

You know, universal healthcare isn't the greatest thing in the world. Everyone always touts Canadian healthcare when it comes up, and you know its great to be able to go for a general work and not have to pay. Whats the downside you ask? The main one I can think of right now is abuse of the system. I know people that have broken near every bone in their body, sometimes twice. And no, not all at once. Why should my taxes pay for his stupidity? Obviously he puts himself in situations he shouldn't be in. And here I am footing the bill. In 22 years I've only been to the emergency room once, and that was for a tetnis shot they wouldn't give me at a medicenter. However there are people that get a rash and bam, first place they go is emergency room. A cough? Emergency room. 6 hour waits are 'the norm'. There's been times family members of mine have simply 'dealt with it' instead of having to wait in the emergency room. Even when they'd warrant a doctor visit. Some people just can't be trusted with this freedom. Many people in Canada are wanting to go with a mixed system to bring some privatization into play to help combat this problem, but so far it hasn't happened.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

My family has never complained about 6 hour waits and they are spread across three central European countries with socialized medicine.

I've asked them, they say it's great, prompt, and care of excellent quality.

[Wile E]

My family has never complained about 6 hour waits and they are spread across three central European countries with socialized medicine.

I've asked them, they say it's great, prompt, and care of excellent quality.

They are rather in the minority, or already naturally very healthy if that is the case. I mostly see people complain about quality of service in socialized systems, but very few ever defend it.

[DIppyskoodlez]

You know, universal healthcare isn't the greatest thing in the world.

You're right.



I prefer no healthcare, its AWESOME. :cool:

Someday, you too can be as cool as us.

[SK-1]

Dave makes Good. Looks like even DAVE agreed with me:p:p:p
http://img.techpowerup.org/090616/Capture233.jpg
"I understand why people are upset..." "A joke that was beyond flawed."
"I'm sorry about it, and I'll try to do better in the future,":o:o

I give major brownie points to the man:)
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/06/letterman-readdresses-palin.html

[El Fiendo]

You're right.
I prefer no healthcare, its AWESOME. :cool:
Someday, you too can be as cool as us.

Hey don't get me wrong, its pretty nice sometimes. Its just everyone seems to think as soon as they have universal healthcare in any shape and form rainbows will spew from everyone's ass and lollipops will shoot from their eyes. I'm just saying there are some serious and detrimental flaws that lead to a stagnant and poor system. Its no good having healthcare if you can't get in to see the doctor.

[SK-1]

Its just everyone seems to think as soon as they have universal healthcare in any shape and form rainbows will spew from everyone's ass and lollipops will shoot from their eyes.

I actually saw that at a concert once.

I like Ford's idea.:) I have always believed that with healthcare, issues such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status should not determine quality of care.His idea,ideally, would do away with this issue. It would be so obvious if a group of people got "low balled", a certain group for instance.Disparities seem to really pervade healthcare to the point that healthcare in the US is fundamentally unequal.I know, been there done that:mad:, and have a family member going through it right now. This inequity is, and always has been, a significant barrier to achieving equal, high levels of healthcare quality.

[FordGT90Concept]

I never heard of discrimination in healthcare service--but, there is a problem legislating that...

If, like businesses, you mandate a "first come, first serve" policy (which is fair in most cases) it leaves no room for emergencies where people need immediate care or they'll die. An unmodified "first come, first server" policy would therefore, not work.

This is where the discrimination comes in. If a provider is a racist, anybody that comes in not of their favored race(s) will be explicitly labeled an emergency even if the person of the favored race just has a minor injury like a cut while the unfavored race(s) may have a heart trama issue and needs immediate assistance.

I think you're only way to attempt to eliminate racism is to have everyone's name and most likely diagnosis entered in to a computer. The computer prioritizes (according to a specific agenda like cardiac arrest, critical patients from accidents, etc.) the diagnosis and outputs in a first priority, first serve, and second order of arrival.


At the same time, the facility might be overcapacity so even with better organization, there still could be hours of waiting. If healthcare providers were up front about pricing, this would also self-correct because an entreprenuer will see a hospital with many hours of waiting for emergencies and establish a new hospital in the area. It will take some workload off the existing hospitals and also cause price competition among those hospitals driving prices for the consumer way down. The hospitals that can't compete price wise, just like any other business, will have to close its doors to be replaced by another, more cost effecient hospital.


A few, healthcare related facts:
-AMA (American Medical Association) does not support Obama's plan for universal healthcare. AMA supports personal rather than employer-based insurance.
-Doctors who treat patients that are covered by Medicare/Medicaid take a very large loss because Medicaid/Medicare does not pay out market value of the care. An example of this: the closest dentist that accepts Medicaid is 50-60 miles away from me in another state. Most practices can't operate with such low funding so they can't accept it as payment.
-Obama's proposal, only covering 16 million more people for 10 years will add an additional $1 trillion to the national debt ($6,250 per year, per person on the plan). That's a little more expensive than the average insurance plan is today but, who is going to pick up that tab? The 200+ other taxpaying Americans.
-If Obama's proposal is passed, private health insurance will go the way of the dodo because they can't compete with a government insurance agency. The government can monetize their debt--a business cannot.

[DIppyskoodlez]

Its no good having healthcare if you can't get in to see the doctor.

Instead of "not being able to get in", we have people that just straight up don't go at all, because they can't afford it, and live with life threatening problems sometimes.

[farlex]

I actually saw that at a concert once.

I like Ford's idea.:) I have always believed that with healthcare, issues such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status should not determine quality of care.His idea,ideally, would do away with this issue. It would be so obvious if a group of people got "low balled", a certain group for instance.Disparities seem to really pervade healthcare to the point that healthcare in the US is fundamentally unequal.I know, been there done that:mad:, and have a family member going through it right now. This inequity is, and always has been, a significant barrier to achieving equal, high levels of healthcare quality.

The plan Ford is talking about would absolutely not stop unequal healthcare, it would just go a different way. Some healthcare providers would offer super cheap healthcare of a much lower quality, and guess who would buy that one. In fact, the exact same inequality that prevails currently would prevail in a completely privatized situation. Equality would really only be achievable through universal (eg government sponsored) healthcare.


At the same time, the facility might be overcapacity so even with better organization, there still could be hours of waiting. If healthcare providers were up front about pricing, this would also self-correct because an entreprenuer will see a hospital with many hours of waiting for emergencies and establish a new hospital in the area. It will take some workload off the existing hospitals and also cause price competition among those hospitals driving prices for the consumer way down. The hospitals that can't compete price wise, just like any other business, will have to close its doors to be replaced by another, more cost effecient hospital.


A few, healthcare related facts:
-AMA (American Medical Association) does not support Obama's plan for universal healthcare. AMA supports personal rather than employer-based insurance.
-Doctors who treat patients that are covered by Medicare/Medicaid take a very large loss because Medicaid/Medicare does not pay out market value of the care. An example of this: the closest dentist that accepts Medicaid is 50-60 miles away from me in another state. Most practices can't operate with such low funding so they can't accept it as payment.
-Obama's proposal, only covering 16 million more people for 10 years will add an additional $1 trillion to the national debt ($6,250 per year, per person on the plan). That's a little more expensive than the average insurance plan is today but, who is going to pick up that tab? The 200+ other taxpaying Americans.
-If Obama's proposal is passed, private health insurance will go the way of the dodo because they can't compete with a government insurance agency. The government can monetize their debt--a business cannot.

Here's the problem, cost efficient does not equal higher quality. As I pointed out in another thread where we discussed this, privatizing an industry means it now operates almost purely on profit, and although perhaps you would like to believe this is usually offered by giving the best service, it more often has to do with lowering overhead and raising prices. So what could (and probably would) end up happening is we would end up paying more for poorer healthcare. You would also end up with all kinds of shady business practices permeating the healthcare market, and who knows what kind of terrible things could happen if a company were to achieve a monopoly of sorts. *shivers*

I will agree though that currently universal healthcare shouldn't really even be thought about. It could've worked, but that's before all this other money went down the drain. We need to develop some assets first. Also I'm not particularly sure I would like our current government in control of healthcare, tis a tad scary. *begins to shake violently*

[El Fiendo]

Instead of "not being able to get in", we have people that just straight up don't go at all, because they can't afford it, and live with life threatening problems sometimes.
And as I said we have people that don't go at all because they can't get in and aren't willing to wait in a room filled with sick people for 6+ hours, if they make it in at all.


I don't want to get into an argument over who's worse off, because when it comes down to it everyone's getting a shit deal. Its just universal healthcare, when improperly managed, can be just as bad as none at all (especially because you have to pay for it all the same). That's my only point I'm trying to make.

[FordGT90Concept]

Here's the problem, cost efficient does not equal higher quality.
Competition does. Socialized medicine means no competition. Cost effectiveness simply determines profitability. Because prices aren't out in the open, there is very, very little competition. I think if prices were out in the open, giant hospitals and clincs will go away to be replaced by smaller, more efficient speciality clinics. There would still be lots of smaller general clinics which would refer you to speciality clinics if necessary but, as with most industries, specialization is the most profitable business model. You focus on one field and work to improve it becoming more cost effective and thusly, more competitive with your pricing keeping people coming to you.

Private schools usually get higher marks than public schools. Because private schools earn their pay, they have an incentive to better themselves drawing more and more students away from the public school system. Yes, it isn't government subsidized and as such, it costs a little more out of pocket but in terms of cost-benefit, private schools are far more efficient than public schools.


As I pointed out in another thread where we discussed this, privatizing an industry means it now operates almost purely on profit, and although perhaps you would like to believe this is usually offered by giving the best service, it more often has to do with lowering overhead and raising prices.
If you don't make a good product or offer a good service, the profit goes away and so does the business. If the market still exists, a new business will come in to clean up the mess and return the business to profitability.


So what could (and probably would) end up happening is we would end up paying more for poorer healthcare.
It won't. When price is left in the dark, capitalism is running blind. Every single clinc/hospital out there is running their own mini-monopoly. They can freely adjust the price of their service because you did not agree to a price prior to the visit/operation. The prices are skyrocketing because there is no moderator in the system to prevent over-charging for services. It has to stop and it begins with being honest about the price before you even start.



Seriously, it would only take as long to implement as it takes for providers to figure out the actual cost of a service and how much to sell that service for in order to get a profit. One small peice (less than a page) of legislation could turn the entire healthcare system around. The first few years might be hard for some providers but in the end, it will save everyone a lot of money (especially taxpayers).

[farlex]

Competition does. Socialized medicine means no competition. Cost effectiveness simply determines profitability. Because prices aren't out in the open, there is very, very little competition. I think if prices were out in the open, giant hospitals and clincs will go away to be replaced by smaller, more efficient speciality clinics. There would still be lots of smaller general clinics which would refer you to speciality clinics if necessary but, as with most industries, specialization is the most profitable business model. You focus on one field and work to improve it becoming more cost effective and thusly, more competitive with your pricing keeping people coming to you.

Private schools usually get higher marks than public schools. Because private schools earn their pay, they have an incentive to better themselves drawing more and more students away from the public school system. Yes, it isn't government subsidized and as such, it costs a little more out of pocket but in terms of cost-benefit, private schools are far more efficient than public schools.



If you don't make a good product or offer a good service, the profit goes away and so does the business. If the market still exists, a new business will come in to clean up the mess and return the business to profitability.



It won't. When price is left in the dark, capitalism is running blind. Every single clinc/hospital out there is running their own mini-monopoly. They can freely adjust the price of their service because you did not agree to a price prior to the visit/operation. The prices are skyrocketing because there is no moderator in the system to prevent over-charging for services. It has to stop and it begins with being honest about the price before you even start.



Seriously, it would only take as long to implement as it takes for providers to figure out the actual cost of a service and how much to sell that service for in order to get a profit. One small peice (less than a page) of legislation could turn the entire healthcare system around. The first few years might be hard for some providers but in the end, it will save everyone a lot of money (especially taxpayers).

Competition does not inspire better quality all the time. Competition inspires profitability, and this often means lower quality products at a higher price. You are thinking theory without realism.

Private schools work well for a number of reasons. Kids who go there are more likely to have parents who invest in their education, and put that as a high priority. As the parents do so do the kids, and thus are more likely to score better. You also tend to not have those at the lower end of the curve in private schools, either b/c they cannot afford it or b/c the school will not accept them, thus overall scores are higher. I can guarantee you a school being private make absolutely no regard in of itself to its output.

It could and it would. So what if they advertise price. They would also lower costs, all the fancy equipment and expensive care that opponents of socialized healthcare say they value so highly would either get more expensive or disappear completely in a need to compete. Also, as I was saying earlier, some would offer low quality healthcare for cheap, and some would offer super premium quality healthcare for the select few. What ends up happening is most everyone gets mid to low end care cheap while a few select get good healthcare (just think of any market, and you'll see this trend). It ends up worse than it's current situation, b/c healthcare isn't the same as TVs and computers, it's not something you really wanna cheap out on.

[FordGT90Concept]

Competition does not inspire better quality all the time. Competition inspires profitability, and this often means lower quality products at a higher price. You are thinking theory without realism.
Name one case where competition didn't either increase quality of a product/service or reduce the cost to the consumer with no loss of quality.



I can guarantee you a school being private make absolutely no regard in of itself to its output.
Where's the documents to back that guarentee?

Obama and McCain agreed that we need to get more students in private/charter schools and if that means a government sponsored voucher to make the transistion, it is still better (in terms of price and quality) than relying on our socialist education system that is completely failing.


It could and it would. So what if they advertise price. They would also lower costs, all the fancy equipment and expensive care that opponents of socialized healthcare say they value so highly would either get more expensive or disappear completely in a need to compete. Also, as I was saying earlier, some would offer low quality healthcare for cheap, and some would offer super premium quality healthcare for the select few. What ends up happening is most everyone gets mid to low end care cheap while a few select get good healthcare (just think of any market, and you'll see this trend). It ends up worse than it's current situation, b/c healthcare isn't the same as TVs and computers, it's not something you really wanna cheap out on.
Hence specialization. Do most people need access to an X-Ray machine and technicians? No. Do surgeons? Yes. Can most conditions be diagnoised without imaging? Yes. Because of the cost of those imaging and surgery machines, they are most likely to be completely spearated from the clincs. That is, for every at least two clincs, there would only be one sugery/imaging center. This increases the volume and therefore increases profitability and ability to meet demand.

That little change in being forward with the pricing is cascading in ways you can't imagine--most of it for the better.

As with anything in a capitalist economy, you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay much, you don't get much. How is that not fair?

Again, take a dentist visit as an example. You can pass on novacaine and nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide especailly costs a lot but if you can get by without, would you not at least want to try to save some money? Moreover, there are places that do concious sedation. They are even more expensive than nitrous oxide offered every where else but the experience (or rather, lack of) is also much better. To some, that extra cost is worth it, to some, it isn't. The healthcare system would be incouraged to fit the demands of the consumer. If no one demands cheap care, then there won't be any cheap care. I can tell you right now, cheap will be all the rage and yes, 90% of those people will love it.

No one should get a $500,000 reconstructive surgery if they can't afford it. It is a fact of life that people die. How much you are willing to spend dipicts how much you value your life or whomever you are paying for. Would you rather have Uncle Sam decide who lives and dies or yourself? If Uncle Sam decides to save everyone, this already bankrupt country will cease to exist. People like choices and don't like to be told what they can and cannot have.


When you place a value on a product or service and make it public, people can make a qualified decision if it is worth the asking price or not. The market adjusts to reflect demands the people create. The healthcare system is missing this critical function of capitalism: price.

[farlex]

Name one case where competition didn't either increase quality of a product/service or reduce the cost to the consumer with no loss of quality.




Where's the documents to back that guarentee?

Obama and McCain agreed that we need to get more students in private/charter schools and if that means a government sponsored voucher to make the transistion, it is still better (in terms of price and quality) than relying on our socialist education system that is completely failing.



Hence specialization. Do most people need access to an X-Ray machine and technicians? No. Do surgeons? Yes. Can most conditions be diagnoised without imaging? Yes. Because of the cost of those imaging and surgery machines, they are most likely to be completely spearated from the clincs. That is, for every at least two clincs, there would only be one sugery/imaging center. This increases the volume and therefore increases profitability and ability to meet demand.

That little change in being forward with the pricing is cascading in ways you can't imagine--most of it for the better.

As with anything in a capitalist economy, you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay much, you don't get much. How is that not fair?

Again, take a dentist visit as an example. You can pass on novacaine and nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide especailly costs a lot but if you can get by without, would you not at least want to try to save some money? Moreover, there are places that do concious sedation. They are even more expensive than nitrous oxide offered every where else but the experience (or rather, lack of) is also much better. To some, that extra cost is worth it, to some, it isn't. The healthcare system would be incouraged to fit the demands of the consumer. If no one demands cheap care, then there won't be any cheap care. I can tell you right now, cheap will be all the rage and yes, 90% of those people will love it.

No one should get a $500,000 reconstructive surgery if they can't afford it. It is a fact of life that people die. How much you are willing to spend dipicts how much you value your life or whomever you are paying for. Would you rather have Uncle Sam decide who lives and dies or yourself? If Uncle Sam decides to save everyone, this already bankrupt country will cease to exist. People like choices and don't like to be told what they can and cannot have.


When you place a value on a product or service and make it public, people can make a qualified decision if it is worth the asking price or not. The market adjusts to reflect demands the people create. The healthcare system is missing this critical function of capitalism: price.

Hmm, every major industry I can think of. Food, cars, you name it. More competition means lower quality (and price usually) for the majority, although to be sure some will still offer a spare no expense philosophy for those fortunate enough to partake.

I'm not going to bother with the rest.

[El Fiendo]

Hmm, every major industry I can think of. Food, cars, you name it. More competition means lower quality (and price usually) for the majority, although to be sure some will still offer a spare no expense philosophy for those fortunate enough to partake.


No, that's a byproduct of greed not competition. In the ideal system people are supposed to look at a lower quality item and go with the higher quality item thus effectively removing any profits gained from the company who decided to manufacture cheaper. Unfortunately, there is the concept that you can buy more items for less money if everything is a poorer quality. This happens so much that companies can't compete with quality, only with lower prices. The initial cause is the public mindset, which then translates into a problem with competition.

I myself prefer quality if it lasts me for years and years. Unfortunately its hard to find quality items anymore.

[farlex]

No, that's a byproduct of greed not competition. In the ideal system people are supposed to look at a lower quality item and go with the higher quality item thus effectively removing any profits gained from the company who decided to manufacture cheaper. Unfortunately, there is the concept that you can buy more items for less money if everything is a poorer quality. This happens so much that companies can't compete with quality, only with lower prices. The initial cause is the public mindset, which then translates into a problem with competition.

I myself prefer quality if it lasts me for years and years. Unfortunately its hard to find quality items anymore.

Greed smeed. It is a product of competition when actually applied in real terms. Same as was argued in the other thread about greed ruining socialism (never really found out how, I guess dictatorship), greed ruins capitalism. Again great in theory not so great in practice. Perfect system has no bearing on the argument.

[El Fiendo]

Greed smeed. It is a product of competition when actually applied in real terms. Same as was argued in the other thread about greed ruining socialism (never really found out how, I guess dictatorship), greed ruins capitalism. Again great in theory not so great in practice. Perfect system has no bearing on the argument.

Erm, your reply is a little funny and a little tough to reply to. It doesn't really provide a clear rebuttal. Anyways, its a product of competition due to greed. Companies don't just go 'hey now, you know what'd be fun? crap products.' The consumers want more and more for less, and are willing to put up with the crap products. In turn, the companies who want to make a profit are happily willing to crapify their product. Originally this was to be weeded out due to people having a higher standard for what they spent money on, but in current times they don't. This was never accounted for when the systems were first drawn up, which were drawn up as perfect systems. Thus, yes, it is a product of competition applied in real terms. The real term being that humanity has the flaw of greed which, for whatever reason, wasn't taken into account.

And I would assume, without knowing the argument in question, that greed is cited as the death of socialism because everyone would want more than what was provided by the government or whomever dolled out the goods.

[farlex]

Erm, your reply is a little funny and a little tough to reply to. It doesn't really provide a clear rebuttal. Anyways, its a product of competition due to greed. Companies don't just go 'hey now, you know what'd be fun? crap products.' The consumers want more and more for less, and are willing to put up with the crap products. In turn, the companies who want to make a profit are happily willing to crapify their product. Originally this was to be weeded out due to people having a higher standard for what they spent money on, but in current times they don't. This was never accounted for when the systems were first drawn up, which were drawn up as perfect systems. Thus, yes, it is a product of competition applied in real terms. The real term being that humanity has the flaw of greed which, for whatever reason, wasn't taken into account.

And I would assume, without knowing the argument in question, that greed is cited as the death of socialism because everyone would want more than what was provided by the government or whomever dolled out the goods.

The last part wasn't meant for you. My point to you was it doesn't really matter whether competition in a situation in which humans aren't involved works, b/c it isn't relevant. Greed is the driving force of capitalism, it's the bread and butter it's what makes it work. Take it out and no one cares about money and you might as well be socialist. Companies operate and exist solely for profit, to make money. The most effective way to do that in simple terms is to lower the manufacturing costs as much as possible while charging as much as can be charged. When competition drives prices down, guess where the company looks, quality of the product.

I think Calvin and Hobbs summed up the state of things pretty well in this comic:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3114/3141139302_45d5b3b0a6_o.jpg

Ford for some reason thinks that competition just makes things better. I think it would be a bad a idea to bring the principals of most luxury industries to something as critical as healthcare.

[FordGT90Concept]

Hmm, every major industry I can think of. Food, cars, you name it. More competition means lower quality (and price usually) for the majority, although to be sure some will still offer a spare no expense philosophy for those fortunate enough to partake.

I'm not going to bother with the rest.
Ford has made higher quality vehicles than GM in the last decade. Which one has declared bankruptcy?

Food? There's two markets for food now: "high quality" 10 fold more expensive "organic" foods and "mainstream quality" genetically modified foods which are higher yeild, more resistant to infection, and other things of the sort. They taste the same to me but some people are absolutely convinced organic is better. Whatever floats your boat on that one but hey, competition has granted you choices and either are profitable for the grower so everyone is happy in the end.


The only thing I can think that has poor quality is those gimmicks sold on TV ads. They have no competition though. Their business model is to move as much product in x number of ad airings as possible and move on to another product.

Really, the only time there isn't competition for an extended period of time is on products that are patented. Once the patent expires, many companies jump on the bandwagon to get a peice of the pie by selling the product for far less than the original brand was asking; however, some people still pay more for the branded products just because of name recognition.


In any case, competition not helping quality/pricing equally is the exception and not the norm. It also only occurs for a brief amount of time before anti-trust lawsuits start hovering over their head.



I myself prefer quality if it lasts me for years and years. Unfortunately its hard to find quality items anymore.
Indeed, the USA economy has evolved into the "disposable society." No one buys anything for keeps--they buy it because it is cheap and when it breaks, they replace it. Mind you, it is consumer demand that caused this shift, not the industry.

50 years ago, if something broke, you didn't just replace it, you got pissed and would never buy that brand again. Today, you shrug, say oh well, and replace it (maybe with another brand, maybe not). Since you got so many brands to choose from, it isn't like you'll run out any time soon in most cases.

Oh, we can't forget how they labels these either (at least in the last decade or two): there is "small appliances" and there is "durable appliances." Durable appliances are like your refridgerator that is meant to last at least five years. Small appliances are like your toaster and portable music player which are meant to last at least one year. Once that time elaspes, you play Russian roulette every time you turn it on...


Greed smeed. It is a product of competition when actually applied in real terms. Same as was argued in the other thread about greed ruining socialism (never really found out how, I guess dictatorship), greed ruins capitalism. Again great in theory not so great in practice. Perfect system has no bearing on the argument.
Greed/self-betterment is the fuel of the engine that is capitalism; capital (often expressed as money) lubricates that engine.


And seriously, not this again. :( That "prefect system" is nonexistant and never will be. There will always be hands that don't fit the glove.



The consumers want more and more for less, and are willing to put up with the crap products.
Only sometimes. Take, for instance, when someone buys a new car, they want anything except a "crap product." The more a product or service costs, the more they expect in every way (longevity, power, performance, reliability, etc.). It is hard to cater to the big spender because their expecations are very high.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

They are rather in the minority, or already naturally very healthy if that is the case. I mostly see people complain about quality of service in socialized systems, but very few ever defend it.

Where is this?

Unless you're talking about American medicare and medicaid, I don't see what you're getting at.

[farlex]

Ford has made higher quality vehicles than GM in the last decade. Which one has declared bankruptcy?

Food? There's two markets for food now: "high quality" 10 fold more expensive "organic" foods and "mainstream quality" genetically modified foods which are higher yeild, more resistant to infection, and other things of the sort. They taste the same to me but some people are absolutely convinced organic is better. Whatever floats your boat on that one but hey, competition has granted you choices and either are profitable for the grower so everyone is happy in the end.


Ford has a better business model that isn't as top heavy as GM's. Interesting tid-bit, the little play car sold for kids (playtel I think?) outsold all American made vehicles last year. I'm afraid neither have terribly good quality.

Food think restaurants, fast food, ect. Cheaper ingredients and labor means greater success (the cashiers at your local deli make more than cashiers at McD's). Two markets is oversimplifying groceries, but yes high end again is where you can find the quality where as the rest is now of lower quality and mass produced (additives and such that weren't used before).

There's a reason the phrase: "They don't make 'em like they used to" came about. For a large part it's true. The only venue that I can see competition has helped dramatically and cheaply has been technology (very broad). But still technological equiptment quality is often driven down by competition. Look at pre-built desktops, I've found that nearly all of them, even top-o-the-line ones, use very cheap PSUs. Why? B/c it's an easy way to cut cost so the consumer won't notice and they have a high likelyhood of needing replacement in a few years. Sure they're faster and the tech is better, but the build quality is lower.

To compete companies lower costs, and with lower costs usually comes lower quality.

[SK-1]

Hmm, every major industry I can think of.

Ass backwards.:) Cars have continually increased in quality 99% of the time.
From safety to reliability.
Food quality and safety has increased tenfold since WW2.

I can provide a vast amount of linkage to back up my post, but that is unlike me.(especially with old forum members).

"they don't make m like they used to" ...THANK GOD. ;)

And BTW farlex, are you going to any shows this summer?:)

[El Fiendo]

The most effective way to do that in simple terms is to lower the manufacturing costs as much as possible while charging as much as can be charged. When competition drives prices down, guess where the company looks, quality of the product.


Right, and as the consumer its up to us to say no to that shit, as we used to do. We haven't been because we'd rather pay less and get more items. The more the companies get away with it, the more they figure they can get away with.

Your animation example simply highlighted corporate greed, which is another issue. Don't get me wrong, I believe in capitalism and it being a better working system than socialism, but you can't begin to tell me the 'exorbitant' salaries are needed. They don't need multi million dollar bonuses and 3 different homes each with 3 of its own cars. But everyone seems to think they do. Meanwhile the country flounders in depression as bailout money gets doled out like candy to the executives.

[FordGT90Concept]

Ford has a better business model that isn't as top heavy as GM's.Ford and GM have weathered the same storms. Just after the Model T and Model A days, Ford was in serious trouble because consumers no longer wanted a clone car. At the same time, GM was producing a large variety of cars that were rather incompatible with each other. GM rapidly passed up Ford and it remained that way until recently.

Fast forward to the early 2000's. All of GM's vehicles are manufacturered on one of three platforms (car, pickup, and commercial truck) with few exceptions. GM reverted back to the methods Ford used back in the 1920's that almost ended Ford. Ford, on the other hand, was still offering a wide variety of cars that used multiple platforms from multiple manufacturers. An example of this is the Ford Thunderbird. It shared parts with some Ford products, some Volvo products, and some Jaguar products. The result was a seamlessly integrated car that was really unlike anything out there--it was altogether different because those three brands are nothing alike. Look at GM and you see only one real brand (Chevrolet) and about half a dozen variants spawned from that brand including most of the lineups offered at Pontiac, GMC, Cadilac, Saturn, and the non-Alpha Hummers. Not to mention, that base product they decided to clone dozens of times over was barely more than mediocre. In the end, no one really cared for GM products like what came to pass with Model T. See one Model T and you've seen them all just like if you see one GM, you've seen them all. No matter how you dress an ugly dog, it is still an ugly dog.

Yes, the UAW didn't help but if GM had a great product that many people wanted, they could have worked through it (like Ford did with their unions). But no, their product is crap and has been for quite some time. The corporation, therefore, fell apart--survival of the fittest.


Food think restaurants, fast food, ect. Cheaper ingredients and labor means greater success (the cashiers at your local deli make more than cashiers at McD's).
You just provided another example of my point. The competition has created tiers of service without being mandated in any way. People that want to eat cheap and fast go to the fast food joint. People that want to eat decent and not so fast go to the deli. Both prosper because they have specialized to a segment of the market.

When you compare two franchises in the same market segment you see very competitive prices and most are very successful. Compare Arby's to McDonalds to Burger King to Wendy's. Prices are very similar, quality is very good (albeit deadly), and the only real complaints is they didn't serve it fast enough during a rush hour.


only venue that I can see competition has helped dramatically and cheaply has been technology (very broad). But still technological equiptment quality is often driven down by competition. Look at pre-built desktops, I've found that nearly all of them, even top-o-the-line ones, use very cheap PSUs. Why? B/c it's an easy way to cut cost so the consumer won't notice and they have a high likelyhood of needing replacement in a few years. Sure they're faster and the tech is better, but the build quality is lower.
Demand has driven quality down, not competition. 95% of consumers are completely fine with a peice of plastic for a computer. I'm not so I demand these $100+ cases and $300+ power supplies. I am in a separate market than those consumers that want cheap and therefore, there is different forces competing like Thermaltake, Silverstone, NZXT, Coolermaster, Enermax, PC Power & Cooling, etc.

Those cheap PSUs can survive a lot of absue--their failure rate isn't so great that customers have stopped purchasing them and therefore reduced demand. They won't go away until something bad happens and the demand for computers containing them goes away.


To compete companies lower costs, and with lower costs usually comes lower quality.
Lower quality is only profitable if consumers allow it to be. If quality is too low that consumers don't buy it, their costs must increase or they go out of business. If there's no point where you can't make it cheap enough to satisfy enough people to remain profitable, the market no longer exists and the company will most likely go bankrupt or it will have to diversify to survive.



Remember, businesses can only respond to what consumers demand. They can influence demand through advertising, promotions, and other marketing strategies but for the most part, the product either sells or it doesn't.


Don't get me wrong, I believe in capitalism and it being a better working system than socialism, but you can't begin to tell me the 'exorbitant' salaries are needed. They don't need multi million dollar bonuses and 3 different homes each with 3 of its own cars. But everyone seems to think they do. Meanwhile the country flounders in depression as bailout money gets doled out like candy to the executives.
As I've stated in other threads, that money is compensation for the weight on their shoulders. That multi-million dollar bonus may have resulted from saving the corporations hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing to heal the wound of a blunder.

Could they be paid less? Absolutely. There are some CEOs (e.g. Steve Jobs), mayors (newly elected mayor of Detroit), and other high ranking positions that take a $1 or less in annual salary. What makes them unique is that they see their work as charitable and not employment. At the same time, by not accepting much money, no one can blame them for bailing out (another reason for the bonuses as it is cheaper to keep someone in employ than hire someone else with a signing bonus).

[farlex]

And BTW farlex, are you going to any shows this summer?:)

Possibly, I'd really like to make it to Red Rocks but it's too far for me. I may see a show or two when they come back around this-a-way toward the end of the summer. What about you?



Demand has driven quality down, not competition. 95% of consumers are completely fine with a peice of plastic for a computer. I'm not so I demand these $100+ cases and $300+ power supplies. I am in a separate market than those consumers that want cheap and therefore, there is different forces competing like Thermaltake, Silverstone, NZXT, Coolermaster, Enermax, PC Power & Cooling, etc.



There is no demand for lower quality, only lower price, and there always will be. Always. As such, companies that have to compete feverently have to drive down costs to keep competitive with prices. As such, quality of the product inevitabely goes down. You can defend crappy products all you want and say oh it's just the people demanding it, it doesn't change the state of affairs.

[FordGT90Concept]

If there was no demand for lower quality, the lower price items wouldn't sell. People spending money creates demand and businesses respond to it.

If no one bought those crappy products because the quality was unreasonably low, those products would cease to exist.

[farlex]

If there was no demand for lower quality, the lower price items wouldn't sell. People spending money creates demand and businesses respond to it.

If no one bought those crappy products because the quality was unreasonably low, those products would cease to exist.

I understand basic supply/demand. You don't need to continue repeating it. I shouldn't need to continue repeating either. This is why we go 'round in circles so often.

And no, there is demand for lower prices, not lower quality. Businesses answer this demand by lowering quality (seriously how many times do I need to repeat it).

[El Fiendo]

Mainly because we're disagreeing on which caused which. Only I agree with you on what caused the lower quality, you just don't agree that people are too damn greedy (lol).

At any rate, the world could do well with a catastrophic event and see if we can get society right on try # 2.

[farlex]

Mainly because we're disagreeing on which caused which. Only I agree with you on what caused the lower quality, you just don't agree that people are too damn greedy (lol).

At any rate, the world could do well with a catastrophic event and see if we can get society right on try # 2.

Lol no I got no qualms with people being too greedy I agree. I perhaps disagree about why or it's importance, but I certainly agree tis a problem. I just don't really factor that into the equation b/c it's assumed to me. If you are talking about something concerning humans, it's just a given that greed plays a role. You can shorten and simplify things by just saying when humans do something it happens like this, there isn't a need to say b/c they are greedy b/c that's just assumed.

I wish it weren't necessary for a cataclysmic event to be a reset button. But yeah we may be too far gone.

[FordGT90Concept]

And no, there is demand for lower prices, not lower quality. Businesses answer this demand by lowering quality (seriously how many times do I need to repeat it).
They are one in the same. There is no such thing as a low price, high quality item because if you raise the price, there is an expected increase in quality. They have a direct relationship. Quality adjusts slower than price but they always balance out given enough time because of competition.

[farlex]

They are one in the same. There is no such thing as a low price, high quality item. They have a direct relationship.

Of course there is. For instance one way a company could lower prices is by lowering CEO wages and/or other methods to boost stock numbers. Of course that's no good so they turn to making the product poorer in quality. A products usefulness is not directly proportional to it's price. Although I suppose as a true capitalist consumer I can see why you think they are intrinsically tied. Remember, you don't pay for the product, you pay for what the market says it's worth (you don't pay what a computer costs to make, you pay what that company can sell the computer for).

[FordGT90Concept]

WTF is there so much CEO hate in this country right now? They are only the figure head for a brain (the board) which controls a much larger body (employees) fueled by blood (money in the way of shares/shareholders).

The CEO gets paid to take the blame and the success, not much more.


Stock numbers are belief that a company will either do well or not. Sales figures dictate that and so do press releases. Nothing hurts a corporation more than fraud and bankruptcy.


Usefulness has very weak ties to quality, demand, or price. Example: a painting. It's quality creates demand and the demand is turned into a price at an auction. A painting isn't very useful by most measures. Another example is the OLPC: the price was set at as low as possible to create demand which means the quality had to take a major hit (it won't get anyone in the USA excited except those in poverty).

You can list anything on the market today and those same rules apply.


By buying a product, you say it is worth at least that amount of money. A market is created everytime a transaction occurs. When there is no more transactions, the market goes away. A market is merely a term describing potential traders for any given product or service.

If people believe a product is not worth the asking price, they don't buy it. Consumers always dictate the price to producers. It is up to the producer to decide how to adjust the variables (quality, price) they control to create demand and lure the potential consumers in.

[farlex]

WTF is there so much CEO hate in this country right now? They are only the figure head for a brain (the board) which controls a much larger body (employees) fueled by blood (money in the way of shares/shareholders).

The CEO gets paid to take the blame and the success, not much more.


Stock numbers are belief that a company will either do well or not. Sales figures dictate that and so do press releases. Nothing hurts a corporation more than fraud and bankruptcy.


Usefulness has very weak ties to quality, demand, or price. Example: a painting. It's quality creates demand and the demand is turned into a price at an auction. A painting isn't very useful by most measures. Another example is the OLPC: the price was set at as low as possible to create demand which means the quality had to take a major hit (it won't get anyone in the USA excited except those in poverty).

Consumers do not dictate the price. Businesses decide, followed by competition. Everyone wants things, some decide they can live without things while others think they can't. Doesn't always change what they cost. All the company needs is to make money, which can be done in a number of ways, and doesn't necessarily require hoards of purchasing masses.
You can list anything on the market today and those same rules apply.


By buying a product, you say it is worth at least that amount of money. A market is created everytime a transaction occurs. When there is no more transactions, the market goes away. A market is merely a term describing potential traders for any given product or service.

If people believe a product is not worth the asking price, you don't buy it. Consumers always dictate the price to producers. It is up to the producer to decide how to adjust the variables (quality, price) they control to influence the consumers buying decisions.

CEO twas merely one example. I don't particularly hate them. Boosting stock numbers artificially was another. I understand why it's done. Usefulness was only applicable in some sectors, in others, yes like art, it doesn't work. I should stop debating, you seem to find round about ways to argue my points without really understanding or going at the heart of what I'm saying. I'm not even sure how we came about debating this, as healthcare was our previous topic.

[FordGT90Concept]

privatized healthcare backed by insurers -> price being left out of healthcare until after the fact -> connections between price and quality -> broader discussion of how free markets relate to price and quality


I'm not say you hate them, it's just they have been in the crosshairs a lot lately everywhere including Congress, President, and the press. It really has been going on and on since CEOs were questioned in committee hearings. I think what really happened is people needed someone to blame for all the current hardships and most of it got directed at them. Again, I don't admire the CEO's position--it's a hard job especially when the bulk of the nation is breathing on your neck.


Economics is a complex subject. I could type out a scenario of the balancing acts between price and quality that plays out over time based on consumer demand but just by pointing out that there is a direct relationship there should be sufficient enough. If people want cheap, they expect low/average quality; if people want expensive, they expect high quality. You see it in every segment of the economy from cars, to appliances, to hotels, to airlines, to mail, to electronics, etc. with a few exceptions...

1) Healltchare; I can't name anyone that is in any measure of satisfied with their service once they see the bill. This indicates that often, the quality is good but the price is nothing short of horrible. Everyone is getting cheated and are in no position to negotiate because they have already been served. Your only option is to lawyer up and that usually means you'll just be declaring bankruptcy faster because you did sign a contract...

2) Government (education, infrastructure, public safety, etc.); No one really knows the cost of government sponsored projects/services. The quality is generally not so great but because you don't know excatly how much you are paying for it out of your own pocket, you again aren't qualified to make a good judgement as to whether or not you are getting cheated. This is the reason why it is dangerous for government to enter any market that is currently privatized--it can always price itself lower than everyone else with no real, commonly understood penalty. Everyone pays for it but only a handful of people can say how much they are paying. Ehm, pending financial doom is always distant and never imminent until (like know) the government is clearly spending beyond its means.


The example of airlines: for some people, coach is good enough; for others, they will accept no less than 1st class. You get what you pay for and if you don't, you have the right to never use the service or buy another product from them again. This act, in itself, is a sign to the business that price does not reflect quality expectations. If the majority agree, they either have to make changes or go out of business. It really is that simple.

[SK-1]

Possibly, I'd really like to make it to Red Rocks but it's too far for me. I may see a show or two when they come back around this-a-way toward the end of the summer. What about you?


Red Rocks would be a dream come true. What a venue, and it's been so long since they've played there. (remember the tragedy:(?) So far,The Gorge Amphitheater and Toyota Park are 100% go:D. And about 70% for Merriweather Post Pavilion in Columbia, MD. Alpine Vally is rocking tonight. Alpine, another great venue. I was there for the two-night stand during their 2004 farewell tour. Crowd estimate (including lot) was 100,000+ for the 2 days.
Shit I'm excited about this tour.

[btarunr]

Also - reading the news is by far the worst way to figure out what's going on in the world.

Right, we should look at better ways to figure out what's going on in the world, like joining the CIA.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

No, I'm just saying to take it with a grain of salt, perhaps twenty.

Misreporting and fearmongering either intentionally or unintentionally is easy, and has led to the fall and manipulation of many Americans, financially, criminally, etc.

[btarunr]

By disregarding information provided to you in its totality, you are distorting the truth in the same way you allege them to do so. You're buying a BigMac, replacing its patties with your own bars of Mars (because you like it that way). "Truth" is never absolute. The day we face the absolute truth, we would have discovered the answer to x/0.

[FordGT90Concept]

x/0 is a flaw in mathematics and the decimal system. You can't divide something by nothing--the statement has no context. I know that's a joke...


I agree that "truth is never absolute." New information always has the possibility to dispel established "truths."

[El Fiendo]

Technically it should count as the same as it started, and not an error. If you are dividing something by nothing then you aren't doing anything at all and whole should remain. But instead it causes rips in the fabric of space and time. Silly math, always causing problems.

[btarunr]

I like how the older calculators would give out x/0 = 0, ie "There is no amount of nothing in something". Today's calculators try to act smart by giving out a "Math Error" message. So x/0 is still open for debate to mankind.

[FordGT90Concept]

Zero can only exist if there is a context (a container). Said differently, you can't "have" zero of anything without the ability to "have" anything.

If you have a container which holds 12 eggs (for instance) and you want to find out how many containers it would take to hold 48 eggs, you solve that quite simply. On the other hand, if you have no containers at all and you want to hold 48 eggs, well, you're just out of luck as you can only hold zero eggs.

The reverse is also true. If you have no containers and want to figure out how many you can hold, your answer will be zero because you don't have any containers in the first place.


What's funny is that computers are made to respond to 5*0 as 0 but 5/0 as "Can't divide by zero" when, in the example given above, the most appropriate answer is 0 in both instances. The reason why digital calculators error is to indicate to the user that this operation is going no where good. Remember, except in calculators specifically designed to work in factional form, floating point specifications will fall apart with most decimal division operations.

As such, it is more of a problem with the limitations imposed by converting decimal to binary than anything else.



Woo, I divided by zero! :D

[T3hPwn3r3r]

By disregarding information provided to you in its totality, you are distorting the truth in the same way you allege them to do so. You're buying a BigMac, replacing its patties with your own bars of Mars (because you like it that way). "Truth" is never absolute. The day we face the absolute truth, we would have discovered the answer to x/0.

...damnit, Mars bars on a burger would be surprisingly delicious, I must try it!

But really, the media has a strong liberal slant in most cases, and those in which it does not slant to the left, it leans hard to the right.

[SK-1]

ITT we discover SK-1 is a conservative preacher-politician from the early 19th century.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

Wow, looks like over half of the country is filled with conservative preacher-politicians from the early 19th century.:)

http://img.techpowerup.org/090801/Capture327.jpg

[Steevo]

I lke this thread, it is like the monkey slinging shit at the zoo. But with no stench and queasy feeling fropm being in the sun all day.

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

Wow, looks like over half of the country is filled with conservative preacher-politicians from the early 19th century.:)

http://img.techpowerup.org/090801/Capture327.jpg
HTF did that happen? All these lawsuits involving abortion doctors?

A pro-choice President got elected... why the change of heart?

[farlex]

HTF did that happen? All these lawsuits involving abortion doctors?

A pro-choice President got elected... why the change of heart?

B/c it's a gallup poll w/ 1000 people polled out of the 300+ million in America. I'm not sure why'd you'd regard that poll as referring to "Americans" in any way shape or form. Another 1000 could have just as easily produced different results.

I think the only thing I dislike about the internet is people now have so much more information they take on a daily basis without any regard about where it came from or what it actually means. Suddenly headlines about a poll of 1000 people mean "half of the US is filled w/ conservative preacher-politicians.......". People assimilate what they want and disregard what they don't want, I think this may be a reason for ideals becoming more split, and unfortunately more pseudo-educated than educated. People just have more ways to hear what they wanna hear now. At least they can hear stuff though.

[FordGT90Concept]

Gallop is a trusted poller. Just because it shows a result you disagree with doesn't make the polling bad. Instead of trying to spit on Gallup, why not try to explain the result?

I think the shift could be caused by those pictures Steevo posted. A picture is worth a thousand words.

[farlex]

Gallop is a trusted poller. Just because it shows a result you disagree with doesn't make the polling bad. Instead of trying to spit on Gallup, why not try to explain the result?

I think the shift could be caused by those pictures Steevo posted. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I'm aware it's a trusted poller. So you are of the notion 1000 people constitutes an accurate representation (not to mention we have no idea what people whether it was an accurate random sample) of a 300+ million populace? You need some stats my friend.

I'm not disagreeing with the results, I'm disagreeing with the method. It's entirely possible, I'd say probable, that the majority of Americans are pro-life, if not by political or religious ideals then by default morals (who wants to truly prevent life ever? it's a tough call, most will default to life). Those pictures do very little except re-affirm pro-lifers and appall and infuriate pro-choicers.

A poll of 1000 people changing from one year to the next doesn't show an overall trend of Americans in the slightest though.

[FordGT90Concept]

I suggest you read the whole article.

[farlex]

I suggest you read the whole article.

I did, hence where I got their method, did you?

[FordGT90Concept]

I see nothing wrong with their method. Margin of error is +/-3%.

Come 2010 and the figures stay relatively the same, then what would you say?

[farlex]

I see nothing wrong with their method. Margin of error is +/-3%.

Come 2010 and the figures stay relatively the same, then what would you say?

+/- 3% w/ 95% confidence rating, and I would disagree w/ such a high confidence rating in this case. Google confidence interval if you're interested. Let's just use a little sense here, if you ask 1,000 people something, especially something as touchy and controversial as abortion on the phone, how could you possibly apply what they say to 300 million people without making wild assumptions and/or having a perfect sample (evenly representing all idealistic groups possible and leaving out individual nuances)?

I would never trust these results in 2010 or 2011 or whenever w/ this method. Give me 100,000 people in an anonymous hand written survey and then I'd agree w/ a 95% confidence rating (which still leaves a fairly large margin of error).

These types of polls are sometimes interesting and somewhat good to follow, but should never be trusted as truth or indicative of real trends.

[FordGT90Concept]

Meh, doubt all you want. I don't care.

[farlex]

Meh, doubt all you want. I don't care.

I don't doubt the majority of Americans are pro-life, as I already said. Making assumptions about the validity of these things is done rampantly though and it's not fact, not even close.

Your attitude here represents the exact attitude I referred to in my first post here. You're willing to go along w/ whatever you agree w/ and disregard anything that argues it on the basis that it's more convenient. It's a trend that's disturbing, people aren't checking where information is coming from, they're going in w/ preset values and forming their beliefs about information based on pre-disposition, rather than altering their values based on the information given and it's source.

[SK-1]

http://img.techpowerup.org/090814/Capture334.jpg
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[FordGT90Concept]

That's what you get for putting this country $3.5 trillion in debt and promising more (healthcare).

[farlex]

http://img.techpowerup.org/090814/Capture334.jpg
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This poll I can trust more b/c it is taken so rapidly and often, and b/c of the subject matter. People are much more likely to be open in a phone interview on this (in fact most are just itching to put their 2 cents in usually) than on abortion. Also this is done far more often than once a year, making it more and more reliable. Also there is not as much gray area here, either you like him or you don't, and much of that comes from the already decided Republican or Democrat in 80% of Amercians.

That's what you get for putting this country $3.5 trillion in debt and promising more (healthcare).

Indeed, it's amazing how this healthcare program is so obviously and wildly unpopular yet Obama sticks to it so passionately and w/o heeding the calls of the people. Sort of reminds me of a previous President who shall remain nameless who for some reason thought his own agenda was better for the people than they knew. When will the damn politicians start actually listening to what the people say? I'll tell you when, never. And the American people will continue to defend it as the best system ever. Arrogance is fatal.

[FordGT90Concept]

More and more Americans are getting fed up with it though (the rural population, specifically).


There is only one plan out so far. I think there will be at least five more and even those most likely won't make it to the floor. Some say the vote won't come until at least January (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/14/murtha-differs-from-obama-on-health-care-timeline/).

[farlex]

More and more Americans are getting fed up with it though (the rural population, specifically).


There is only one plan out so far. I think there will be at least five more and even those most likely won't make it to the floor. Some say the vote won't come until at least January (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/14/murtha-differs-from-obama-on-health-care-timeline/).

If it were to pass representative of the populations' approval it would have to be drastically different than it's current form, not even recognizable really (minor reform at this stage, little by little is probably the best way). Unfortunately with the way things are set up the people don't really get to make the decision, for some reason we decided to let other people decide our fate (ironic considering those w/ the most problems w/ Obamacare are really hung up on personal freedom and anti-government, yet they let the government decide this for them). Maybe it's so we can yell at them. :confused:

[FordGT90Concept]

Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats won't sign off on anything that isn't budget neutral.

I think a special election should be held where all proposals appear on a single ballot and must be submitted one year prior to the vote. That basically meaning require all proposals be submitted before Novemeber either 2010 or 2011 and hold a vote one year after that. That way, the populous that cares enough to have a say in it can choose their own poison. The proposal that gets the most votes is implemented. That gives people plenty of time to create a proposal, submit it for approval (requires 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot), and (after the deadline) a year to research which option they like the best.

Because this issue is directly effecting their well being, I believe the intiative for people to research and make an informed decision is already in place.

Undoubtedly, some people are going to get screwed by such a vote but it is going to happen one way or another. Better to be screwed by the majority of your fellow Americans than some sleezy politician that makes a living out your misery. :p

[pepsi71ocean]

Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats won't sign off on anything that isn't budget neutral.

I think a special election should be held where all proposals appear on a single ballot and must be submitted one year prior to the vote. That basically meaning require all proposals be submitted before Novemeber either 2010 or 2011 and hold a vote one year after that. That way, the populous that cares enough to have a say in it can choose their own poison. The proposal that gets the most votes is implemented. That gives people plenty of time to create a proposal, submit it for approval (requires 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot), and (after the deadline) a year to research which option they like the best.

Because this issue is directly effecting their well being, I believe the intiative for people to research and make an informed decision is already in place.

Undoubtedly, some people are going to get screwed by such a vote but it is going to happen one way or another. Better to be screwed by the majority of your fellow Americans than some sleezy politician that makes a living out your misery. :p

That is a DEMOCRACY, WE ARE A REPUBLIC< NOT A DEMOCRACY, LOL:p

[FordGT90Concept]

A republic can hold a special election on issues the governing body does not want to handle. For most issues, a public ballot isn't practical or beneficial. On this issue, I feel it is necessary.

[farlex]

That is a DEMOCRACY, WE ARE A REPUBLIC< NOT A DEMOCRACY, LOL:p

Perhaps it's time we were a democracy.

A republic can hold a special election on issues the governing body does not want to handle. For most issues, a public ballot isn't practical or beneficial. On this issue, I feel it is necessary.

I agree. We may find from doing so that it actually is quite practical and perhaps even favorable.......

[pepsi71ocean]

Perhaps it's time we were a democracy.


it would be impractical, however i do believe we should vote people into office based on the POPULAR vote not the ELECTORAL vote.

THat system is outdated and can die for all i care, And that goes for everything, i think we should vote all reps in.

I think that its asinine to have a public vote for everything, that is the problem with a democracy. But i do think that we could have a vote here or there, as long as ACORN isn't making fake votes again, like they did during the election.

[farlex]

it would be impractical, however i do believe we should vote people into office based on the POPULAR vote not the ELECTORAL vote.

THat system is outdated and can die for all i care, And that goes for everything, i think we should vote all reps in.

I think that its asinine to have a public vote for everything, that is the problem with a democracy. But i do think that we could have a vote here or there, as long as ACORN isn't making fake votes again, like they did during the election.

I think it's impractical to keep letting a few control the many and especially when those few aren't even very well qualified to do so. We're putting our faith in a bunch of people whose only common factor is they are wealthy and campaign well (which can carry over from the first). Not that they know the law well, not that they listen to their people, not that they know economics, not that they are very intelligent or are very compassionate or are good leaders or that they have our interests in mind (although to be sure some at least (I hope) fit into at least a few of these categories). No they simply got there by labeling themselves in one of 2 categories then spent enough money for those who also label themselves in one of those to categories to say "hey, you can control my life your pretending to have some of my same values I'll just vote for the lesser of 2 evils."

That's damn asinine and impractical to me.

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't know...

Democracy is better in that people get fairly represented.

Republic is better in that the duties of politics only fall to a few people so the rest can go about their lives not mulling over every single legal document out there.

I believe, 99% of the time, republics are more suitable so long as the representatives are, in fact, representative of their constituents. The 1% where a democracy is needed on issues that are very personal--like healthcare. That is, issues where the people are deeply concerned enough about the issue to play the role of politician in regard to the bill.

I also believe that the electoral college needs to die. It was created back in the 1700's so that a whole state wouldn't have to travel to Pittsburgh or New York to cast their ballot. Instead, a township could cast their ballots at the town hall and send a delegate to Pittsburgh/New York to cast the ballot on the behalf of the people. Hell, why don't we all vote via USPS-delivered ballot and send it straight to Washington D.C. to be tabulated? It can't be any more expensive than fancy dancy polling machines and recounts.

So...recap:
-Public officials are elected via democratic methods (every vote is a vote for the candidate).
-Bills can be voted on via the same democratic methods if there is significant interest in doing so.
-Bills that the public are not passionate about go through the same channels as they have since 1776.

The only thing that needs doing is to quantify which bills go to public vote and which don't. Perhap a majority vote in the Senate and House would suffice. If people really want to vote on the issue, they would convey that message to the Senate/House and the Senate/House can move the vote to do so to the floor.

[Cuzza]

not that my opinion matters here but I agree, that electoral college system is ridiculous

[farlex]

I don't know...

Democracy is better in that people get fairly represented.

Republic is better in that the duties of politics only fall to a few people so the rest can go about their lives not mulling over every single legal document out there.

I believe, 99% of the time, republics are more suitable so long as the representatives are, in fact, representative of their constituents. The 1% where a democracy is needed on issues that are very personal--like healthcare. That is, issues where the people are deeply concerned enough about the issue to play the role of politician in regard to the bill.

I also believe that the electoral college needs to die. It was created back in the 1700's so that a whole state wouldn't have to travel to Pittsburgh or New York to cast their ballot. Instead, a township could cast their ballots at the town hall and send a delegate to Pittsburgh/New York to cast the ballot on the behalf of the people. Hell, why don't we all vote via USPS-delivered ballot and send it straight to Washington D.C. to be tabulated? It can't be any more expensive than fancy dancy polling machines and recounts.

So...recap:
-Public officials are elected via democratic methods (every vote is a vote for the candidate).
-Bills can be voted on via the same democratic methods if there is significant interest in doing so.
-Bills that the public are not passionate about go through the same channels as they have since 1776.

The only thing that needs doing is to quantify which bills go to public vote and which don't. Perhap a majority vote in the Senate and House would suffice. If people really want to vote on the issue, they would convey that message to the Senate/House and the Senate/House can move the vote to do so to the floor.

It's all very personal, people just express different levels of outrage over things at different times. The failed stimulus, economy, frequent outcries of conservatives over "socialist" tendencies of Obama have led to a particularly stiff resistance this time round, Obama's just got some bad timing here. To some people I know, the war on drugs is pretty personal. People all but have their lives ruined for eating this or smoking that (not by the drugs themselves, but more by the government that tells them it will ruin their lives, irony in it's stupidest form). Some people I know education is very personal, I don't think I need to explain that one. Taxes are personal, ect, ect, it just comes down to flavor of the month as to what the public actually starts being vocal about though.

To me, everything the government does that dictates my life and the life of those around me is by definition 100% personal. Therefore I want to have a say in it, and I feel I'm more qualified to make such a vote than the politicians.

[FordGT90Concept]

208 million elgible to vote
169 million registered voters (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_voters_in_the_2008_Presidentia l_election) (81%)
131 million voted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_Election_2008#Nationwid e_Results) (63%)

Only 63% of the voting population cares about politics.


The reason why Congress exists is to debate issues and come to a decision. If everyone voted from home, there is little opportunity to debate. As a result, I think a 100% democracy would result in a stalemate 99.9% of the time. Not to mention, the time between bill proprosal to law would be measured in years, not months. And we can't forget that most of those 131 million people wouldn't take the time to research the proposal and even if some did, they'd still get beat by the majority that is basing their vote on the title/introduction statements.

It's good in theory but not in practice. Democracy can only work on a small scale where everyone is in close proximity to each other (like Congress).

[farlex]

208 million elgible to vote
169 million registered voters (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_voters_in_the_2008_Presidentia l_election) (81%)
131 million voted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_Election_2008#Nationwid e_Results) (63%)

Only 63% of the voting population cares about politics.


The reason why Congress exists is to debate issues and come to a decision. If everyone voted from home, there is little opportunity to debate. As a result, I think a 100% democracy would result in a stalemate 99.9% of the time. Not to mention, the time between bill proprosal to law would be measured in years, not months. And we can't forget that most of those 131 million people wouldn't take the time to research the proposal and even if some did, they'd still get beat by the majority that is basing their vote on the title/introduction statements.

It's good in theory but not in practice. Democracy can only work on a small scale where everyone is in close proximity to each other (like Congress).

You are proving exactly my point w/ those statistics. The failure to participate is evidence of the system's failure. If you ask people why they didn't vote, it isn't usually b/c they don't care, it's b/c they have no faith the system works. What are they voting for after all? I thought I already made that clear as to why someone wouldn't vote for a politician. You're right, 63% don't care about politics, but I guarantee 99% care about the issues, our system just doesn't give them proper outlet to decide them. If people had a chance to vote on the issues individually, you'd see that participation vote skyrocket, I'd wager to near 100% at first then leveling off around 85-95%. You are misinterpreting the results grossly.

Bill proposal would happen much faster, in fact too fast perhaps. People are sometimes rash, which was the whole point of the republic in the first place (keep the majority from acting quickly). W/ the media the way it is it would be quite easy to fully debate and discuss and vote on a topic w/i a month or 2. Think of all you've heard of healthcare in the last month. You know the bill even if you've been determined not to.

How would we know, it's never been tried recently. Proximity is irrelevant now that we have the communicative technology we do. We're proving that right now. That argument holds absolutely no bearing anymore.

[FordGT90Concept]

So are you saying you are fine with a several year delay on an action? For social issues, I don't have a problem with it (we'll be bickering about it for years anyway most of the time) but for issues like declaring war, time is not on our side.


There is no bill yet for healthcare and most you see in the press is "sound bites." A few days ago it was this public option was going to swollow the private health insurance system whole and today, it is Obama's statement of the "public option" being a "sliver" of the reform which quickly turned into "public option" may no longer be on the table. Media cycles are well under an hour long for the most part.

The media is great at scaring the public into doing nothing.


I think you are right though--we need to renovate the voting system so people can do it from home if they choose. Once you got that in place, we could try a more democratic approach to voting and see how it works out. The infrastructure must be established first (must be secure, secret, and guarantee no more than one vote per eligible voter).


There's also a distinct advantage to a democracy: lobbying doesn't really work. In a republic, there is bottlenecks with the vote where, if a lobbyists positions themselves in the right place, they can have a vast impact on the outcomes. In a democracy, because you are dealing with individuals instead of a representative, it is much more difficult to influence large enough groups of voters to change the outcome.

At the same time, political parties would still exist because there will still be lazy people that would rather behave like sheep and follow someone else.


Oh, and we can't forget that the Constitution set up the Congress. Changing to a democracy means a serious amendment that must be approved by 75% or anarchy (practicing the 2nd amendment).

[farlex]

So are you saying you are fine with a several year delay on an action? For social issues, I don't have a problem with it (we'll be bickering about it for years anyway most of the time) but for issues like declaring war, time is not on our side.


There is no bill yet for healthcare and most you see in the press is "sound bites." A few days ago it was this public option was going to swollow the private health insurance system whole and today, it is Obama's statement of the "public option" being a "sliver" of the reform which quickly turned into "public option" may no longer be on the table. Media cycles are well under an hour long for the most part.

The media is great at scaring the public into doing nothing.


I think you are right though--we need to renovate the voting system so people can do it from home if they choose. Once you got that in place, we could try a more democratic approach to voting and see how it works out. The infrastructure must be established first (must be secure, secret, and guarantee no more than one vote per eligible voter).


There's also a distinct advantage to a democracy: lobbying doesn't really work. In a republic, there is bottlenecks with the vote where, if a lobbyists positions themselves in the right place, they can have a vast impact on the outcomes. In a democracy, because you are dealing with individuals instead of a representative, it is much more difficult to influence large enough groups of voters to change the outcome.

At the same time, political parties would still exist because there will still be lazy people that would rather behave like sheep and follow someone else.


Oh, and we can't forget that the Constitution set up the Congress. Changing to a democracy means a serious amendment that must be approved by 75% or anarchy (practicing the 2nd amendment).

I'm saying I don't think there will be any more of a delay than there already is, in fact in some cases less of one. I don't think the American people will have any problem declaring war rapidly if we need to, especially if provoked. If you would have a had a popular vote after Pearl Harbor or 9/11, war would have been declared nearly unanimously immediately. The people are fighting, the decision should lie w/ them.

I know, but if a bill were to be written there's a good chance you'd know what is in it. My point was the various channels that allow us to receive info so quickly now would easily provide us w/ means to quickly educate voters on legislation.

That's b/c of their current role, if political parties dissolve somewhat and the people directly vote, you'd see the media behave a bit differently.

The infrastructure is absolutely critical, and it must be of the highest integrity. I think it is possible, but would need the human touch (live monitoring) as well as the computer component. Checks and balances.

I agree this is a huge advantage of a democracy. It would no longer stand to profit a few individuals to ignore the will and benefit of the people, they would be effectively circumvented.

Political parties would still exist but be more varied and less confined then our current 2 party system.

Yes this is the biggest reason it won't likely happen. Ratification of such a change would require those w/ power effectively handing it over to the people. Lord knows that's about as likely as pigs flying. A slow approach would be best, as you suggest a trial run on something like health care. It works a few times gains steam and public favor and then we're going somewhere.

[SK-1]

Still FUBAR!! XD
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_untitled__4dave04m.html

[FordGT90Concept]

LMAO! A pimp pad at his place of work. The guy was efficient--ya gotta give him that much. XD