Sheiky
-
Content Count
4,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Sheiky
-
-
I like never post here anymore, but i'm in the 6-nations gambol, just wanted to say hi!
-
And there it is again!...you are assuming that most angry (lets call it passionate) folks have no knowledge of the facts or have not read the bill or are reacting solely because they only heard Rush's take on it . But the reason they are angry because they HAVE read the bill and/or good portions of it, yet know they might not have any choice but to live with it. It's like being held down and told something you do not want to happen is going to happen whether you like it or not. Result??? ANGER! the anger of not having much of a say in how it turns out, and that their voices are not being heard, that they do NOT want this but have to eat shit anyway. That would piss anyone off imo...But i'm not assuming, i've given many examples of healthcare articles and comments that show exactly the tendency I'm talking about. And the fact is, barely anyone who is complaining about this bill has read it, and even if they have it was already with their mind made up, their only motive for reading the bill being to find small lines of texts that an be twisted to fit their own pre-decided conclusion. Because you live in your own country, you might not realise how absolutely absurd and unashamedly biased stuff gets published in the media/internet. I've read a lot of debate on this healthcare bill, and I've literally seen no Republicans that gave convincing unbiased arguments based on logical evidence that didn't revolve around killing grandma or flaming socialist fears. The provenance and motive of 99% of opposing literature is so totally based around their ideology and completely blinded and non-objective to reality.I respect opinions that come from people who have analysed the situations without their minds made up. From people who are willing to admit that something which does not 'fit' with their ideology might actually be the best move. From people who have good enough reasons against something that their first resort isn't twisting every sentence they can find into the next apocalypse. This is sadly not the case in American politics.
-
Again, good job not making yourself look intellectually inferior.there ya have it...simple, short and to the point. Well played!! -
Consider that large firms spend ten times as much on lobbying as their employees spend on campaign contributions through PACs, as individuals, or in the form of unregulated contributions to political parties (i.e., soft money). I mention employee contributions because, contrary to the sloppy reporting that appears regularly in U.S. newspapers, corporations in the United States do not contribute to political campaigns: they are prohibited from doing so and have been so prohibited since 1907. When you read that Enron has given X million dollars to candidates, what that really means is that people who identify themselves as Enron employees have given X million dollars of their own money.
-
That's exactly the kind of ideologically based un-objective logic that makes liberals think they're inttelectually superior.It's pretty hard to respect someone's opinion on a incredibly complex subject when they blatantly show that they have no knowledge or regard for the facts and that their opinion is based solely on some warped right wing mantra of government being 100% bad. There are reasons and arguments to oppose Obama's plan, but not many people seem to give a **** about them. Instead, they make up their opinion on his proposals beforehand then try and twist the facts (or, more aptly, completely make them up) to make them fit their ingrained belief. Like I say, it's really hard to respect people who say that the NHS would murder Ted Kennedy, that the government would pull the plug on grandma or that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have stood a chance had he been born in England. I'm sorry, but saying 'most of the angry people don't want the Government any farther us our asses than they already are. Period. It's that simple.' and then complaining that you don't get any respect because other people view you as having zero ability to view things objectively is absurd, as you are displaying EXACTLY that characteristic.I love how so many libs look at any disagreement with Obamacare from an arrogant perspective of intellectual superiority. As if the people who are disagreeing are all dumb drooling nit wits who can't think for themselves and have zero ability to look at things objectively. Pretty insulting. The reality is that this thing is so clear that there is really very little to debate. You either love it or hate it. And that tends to also flow along the lines of you either want to march further into socialism or you don't. But screw all of that for now. Forget all the bullshit/truths/lies/etc. The base of all this discontent? Most of the angry people don't want the Government any farther us our asses than they already are. Period.It's that simple. -
Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans. This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.Lmfao, this is the stupidest ****ing thing i've ever heard. I didn't read the rest of the article, and after reading this there's no way anything else said is going to have the slightest bit of credibility, not that I imagine the intro would lead me to believe that it had any to start with.The idea that black people are a better fit with the Republican party, that they have been deceived by the democrat party into voting against their interests, is just ****ing hilarious. Seriously, my mind is exploding with how retarded this guy is that I can't even form a a paragraph detailing why he is so retarded.How anyone could read this and think 'Wow, that's a really could article written by a totally unbiased author who definitely does not have an agenda to promote and who would totally call his own party racist if that was the truth. Thanks for writing this Mr.unbiased bard of the truth' when he's so openly biased is beyond me.
-
I don't think i've agreed with a Henry post more.I'm not sure if it's good politics or not, whether calling stuff death panels actually aids their electoral cause, but it seems to me like another example of the Republican party not being able to find their own right hand and falling back to the '**** it lets just over exaggerate everything and appeal to our base' strategy. I know that there are a ton of non-Republican voters that will/are swayed by this stuff, who believe the pure bile that they spew some times. Surely there is a much bigger % of the population that could be convinced by sensible and realistic criticism of an imperfect bill, criticism that cannot be easily refuted by the opposition pointing out that you're a moron for exaggerating it so much.
-
Where in lies the art of compromise. 'My' side will allow 'your' side to have something you want in the bill, but we think that this is a pretty fair compromise to make.I don't agree with the basic premise in item #3
2. Haha, yes it is, i'm not entirely sure why I wrote that3. I would say that there are going to be a lot of complicated issues that would come about if this was agreed to, issues that should be dealt with at a later date and not detract from the main issue, though I agree that they're important. As I see it, 3 is a crucial part of the bill. One of the problems with the health insurance market is that of adverse selection; insurance companies do not wish to provide(or at too high a price) for those who need health coverage the most. Our side wishes that all people should at least have access to health coverage, and without government providing it (which is something you want) the only way to do this would be to disallow insurance providers from barring those who need it most. 4. Whatever works best. I have no idealogical bias towards either, and I don't really know which would provide the most efficient service, so which ever would work best, i'd agree with that.5. Like Guapo said, the idea behind this is that if we are to insist on non-barring health insurance to anyone, then we should also insist that those with no pre-existing conditions should obtain health insurance as well. I think this is a point we can all agree on as A) It benefits insurance companies as they are taking money from people with no serious health problems that wouldn't otherwise purchase health insurance, B ) It benefits my side as we believe we should aim for 100% coverage. I agree that the argument 'It's their choice' has some merit, and even that a lot of wealthy people have no need for health insurance (as Phil Galfond point out, it's -EV and he can handle the variance), but it's well documented that people mis-estimate their risk and don't plan well for the future. I know you won't like this as you don't want government telling people what to do, which is fair enough, but I really think it's warranted in this case. Also, as I understand it, People who are sick are by law required to be treated (to some degree) by hospitals, and that these people are a pretty big cost to the health business. Mandating health insurance would solve that problem.6. I'm taking it you agree with me? Yes this would be a huge huge change, but I can't help but think it's be one for the better.7. I'm assuming there's some reason why cross-state competition is illegal right now but i've never got what it is. Your side seems to want this a lot and it seems to make sense to me, providing 8 is included.8. Basically some sort of system to ensure that there is competition among insurance and health providing companies. Making sure monopolies or price fixing cartels don't develop. I'm guessing this is already in place for the health industry (as it is for most other industries) but just to make sure.1. Excellent2. Excellent.... wait, isn't that the same as 1?3. This is really a tough issue that needs it's own thread, or better yet, a meeting with all interested parties. Overall, I'd say no, for obvious reasons. You want pregnancy insurance? But can wait until the 8th month? How much would THAT cost?4. OK, but especially if by "government" you mean "local or state governments"5. No. If it doesn't make sense for you to purchase insurance, you should have to. One of the reasons insurance is expensive because people are being made to purchase it, even if it doesn't make sense.6. This would be a HUGE change, and by far the biggest impact single change we could make.7. And this would also be near the top of "good changes".8. Not sure what this means.
A. Like I say, i'm not saying that health care is a right or that it is written down in the constitution, i'm saying that our side believes it should be.B. I actually agree with some form of higher premiums for smoker or obese people. I'm not sure how such a system would work or what the specifics would be, but I think I agree in principle. C. If these people who cannot pay were mandated to purchase health insurance, and the government would provide subsidies for those that cannot, then there would be no non-insured people being treated in hospitals. Illegal immigrants is a different issue I guess, one that I don't really know what to do.D. I agree it's very complex. As stated, my two main concerns are that it is a cost for businesses and that the average American has over 12 different jobs in his working career. A system not based on employer based insurance would be simpler and better for businesses imo.E. No it doesn't at all. Market agents create competition, but they also have a high tendency to create monopolies which damages competition and is a failure of the free market. Competition policy is a contentious field but pretending that a free market in health care could regulate itself and does not have the possibility of creating a monopoly power is just silly.A. It would be ideal that everyone had coverage. It would also be ideal if everyone had a home, food and a steady job, etc. These are not rights guaranteed anywhere, nor is it the government's mandate to provide them. Despite this invalidating the rest of the plan, I'll go on.B. This is already happening indirectly. Costs for emergency and other hospital services are inflated to cover the cost of providing those services to illegal immigrants and people who cannot pay. These costs are passed on to both the consumer and the insurance company. The problem is the actual costs, not that healthy people or people with insurance aren't paying enough to cover those who don't fall into those categories. I think you should pay higher insurance premiums for being obese or a smoker for one. It would certainly reward people who make healthier choices with their lives and encourage people to take responsibility for their health.C. Wow. No. D. In my opinion, there is no implicit problem with insurance as part of the benefits of a job if you have ultimate choice in what you are getting. The problem is that companies receive a tax incentive for paying for it that those who seek it independent of an employer to not. This is a very very complex issue though.E. I cannot even comprehend what this would mean or look like. In an open market system like the one you mention before, the market regulates competition.
Obviously I don't know the numbers of what the overall effect would be, but that's my idea.Wouldn't it make insurance cheaper if healthy people were purchasing it but not using it? They have more money but not the same increase in services. -
As an aside, he could actually have got his voice simulator accent changed years ago, he just decided not to as it has become so iconic.wow, he doesn't even have an accent! -
What about this proposal - 'We' want everyone to have health coverage, 'you' don't want to ration healthcare or get government involved.How about - 1. The government provides no public option2. All insurance plans are provided by private insurers3. HOWEVER, because we think it's correct that everyone should have health coverage, insurers are not allowed to reject people with pre-existing conditions etc. The cost of these people will just have to be borne with higher premiums for all4. For those who cannot afford it, the government shall provide subsidies for basic healthcare insurance5. Everyone has to have some form of health insurance. This will mitigate the effect of insurance companies having to provide for pre-existing condition people by making those least at risk share the cost. 6. Insurance will not be employer based. Healthcare costs are unfair on small and large businesses alike and people go through many many jobs in a career. 7. Cross-state competition among insurance providers will be allowed8. However, companies will be subject to a strict competition policy
-
Just in case anyone missed the joke in my OP, Stephen Hawking is actually a British citizen and has lived here his whole life. It's pretty amazing that he's still alive right now considering he never had a chance to begin with.
-
No, it's not. I believe the actual number is like 45 million but obviously that can be very misleading either way. My whole point is that there are a multitude of variables to consider when determining what the 'best' healthcare system is, and a lot of those variables are a matter of personal philosophy and opinion. Philosophy and opinion which can't be 'proven' with numbers.It's a little bit relevant. Otherwise you would've just said "some" instead of "30 million." -
The concept of 'best' healthcare in the world is a pretty intangible concept, which is why the WHO hasn't updated their rankings since 2000 (or at least not that i've seen). No one can really agree on what the 'best' healthcare system would entail and therefore you can't really create rankings for it. The USA may have the best doctors in the world, but is that worth the fact 30 million Americans don't have health insurance? (Don't quote me on that number, it's irrelevant to my point). To some people, it is, to others, it definitely isn't.
-
lmaoI think the white van part was what he was pointing out. The brothers need to stick with their own color vans if they wants to be cruising chicks in the other side of town. -
Yes, but my paragraph doesn't have the same effect when I say 'we never would have heard about hawking radiation'.u do know america is the only industrialized nation without gov healthcare, right?and hawking didn't introduce the big bang theory to the world.
Silicon Valley presumably[ -
You think driving while black should be a searchable offence? wtf are you talking about? pulling someone over for the sole reason that they are black in a white neighbourhood is one of the most retarded things I can think ofThere are many forms of racism that shouldn't go away. There are some things where race will always be a factor, since there are differences between races. More Arabs are extreme muslims, so arabs will be racially profiled by Homeland Security, which, quite frankly, they should be. Being pulled over for Driving While Black in a upper class white neighborhood is also very common, and again, probably should be (especially when the driver is operating a white van with tinted windows). -
She's been through a lot of personal trauma hasn't sheBut you know that 'rumor' of the African-Amercian baby sitter that Bill impregnated was in the back of Hillary's mind the whole trip. -
Looool, is it really that difficult to say politely 'I'm not my husband so I can't say' and smile? Especially when you're speaking at a press conference in Africa where it's likely that the students don't really follow American politics that much.
-
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...333933006516877I must admit, after reading this article, I am now fully against socialised medicine. I didn't know it, but apparently my country is killing off old people like Hitler killed of the Jews.Among the many numerous good points brought up by this article, i was most hit by the fact that if it wasn't for American non-socialised medicine, Stephen Hawking wouldn't have had a chance. Just think, if Stephen hawking was British, he would have been killed off by our evil healthcare system and we never would have heard of the Big Bang.
-
I think the article is confusing cause and effect in Japan and reaching the wrong conclusions over the prospects for the US economy. It's a fallacy to link aggressive monetary policy > Japan's lost decade. IMO, every economic situation is different and even though many have simmilarities, you cannot make such board assumptions and generalisations ('Japan became indebted, we're becoming indebted, therefore, we are Japan) because there are so so many other factors to take into account. I think he's confusing cause and effect by proclaiming that aggressive monetary policy caused the situation in Japan. Imo, it didn't. It was a result of the situation, just like cheering at a football match is the result of a touchdown, the touchdown isn't a result of the cheering. Given the situation, I think it's clear that aggressive monetary policy is the correct course of action. Japan entered a deflationary spiral because they were caught in a liquidity trap, not because of overly aggressive monetary policy. Indeed, there are those who believe policy was no aggressive enough and the whole situation could have been averted had they acted more vigorously. When deflation occurs, the real value of debt rises. This was a massive factor in the great depression and I think it's absolutely correct to make sure it is not a factor in creating another one. Anyway, If the fed have to chose between the lesser of two evils (which I think is far from the case), then I think 1990s Japan would be the choice every time.I think that Sheiky will win this bet but for a different reason - money quotes from article that I linked.The raging debate now is when -- not if -- the Fed's massive printing is going to spark a huge round of "inflation" forcing up interest rates. The fears are unfounded.The key to sorting this endgame out is simple: Financial deleveraging constitutes deflation by definition.Household debt via bankruptcies, foreclosures, credit-card defaults, and walk-aways is falling faster than the Fed is "effectively printing.” I use that term because the Fed can print all it wants; if the money just sits as excess reserves, the velocity of that money will be zero and it won’t affect the economy or prices.Moreover, savings are rising, banks have little impetus to lend, and consumers and businesses are reluctant to borrow.Thus, the most likely result of Ben Bernanke's printing-press operation will be to drag the "job-loss recovery" out for another decade, just as happened in JapanDeleveraging the most leveraged economy in History -
Which, going back to an argument me and Henry had a while ago, is why inflation is not just a 2 variable measure of the amount of money in circulation V the amount of goods and services produced. From someone who obviously reads/believes a lot of monetarist ideas (or maybe it just seems that way via your belief in the Austrian school) it's surprising that you've either never come across MV=PQ or chose to ignore it at any rate.
-
There is a story about Olof Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister, going to see Ronald Reagan in America in the 1980s. Before he arrived Ronald Reagan said -- and he was the Swedish Social Democratic Prime Minister -- "Isn’t this man a communist?" The reply was, "No, Mr President, he’s an anti-communist." And Ronald Reagan said, "I don’t care what kind of communist he is!" Ronald Reagan asked Olof Palme, the Social Democratic Prime Minister of Sweden, "Well, what do you believe in? Do you want to abolish the rich?" He said, "No, I want to abolish the poor." Our responsibility is to let everyone have the chance to realize their potential to the full."
-
I originally typed regean then thought it sounded dumb and opted for the simpler ReganYou misspelled Reagan's name in your title. -
Ahh for some reason I thought there was a RPI for the USA too, after some googling there appears not to be one so yeah, CPI is fine with me.I think it's normally called the CPI here, but same concept, so yeah, deal.
Why Are More And More People Convinced Obama Is A Muslim?
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted
I haven't heard a ton about how much Obama loves eating steak, therefore I can only assume that he's actually a vegetarian, I mean he doesn't exactly look like a red blooded meat eater does he?