Daniels's Opening Comments On His Blog

[akoff 0]

Ding ding!And as liberals find the "system" to be unjust, no one ever thinks of the negative impact of Obama's tax plan. Not only do the top 1% of incomes in this country pay 40% of the tax, but they also have serious control over jobs and prices (not just talking individuals, but businesses as well... and, of course, individuals within businesses that have major stock interest). With government interference taxing the wealthy through the roof, they aren't going to be able to afford the lustrous quantity of jobs and wages that exist in their businesses today.As much as social democrats don't like the system that we live under, it IS the system that we have. Obama's plan might work better in a more socialized country, but it will tank the economy in this one. The availability of jobs and wage amounts are controlled from the top to the bottom and if you attack the top (which already receives an extremely unfair tax burden), the bottom will suffer even more then you think they suffer already.Wages will suffer, prices will rise, unemployment will skyrocket, and the "awesome tax breaks" that Obama wants to give the middle class will mean absolutely nothing because the standard of living will drop drastically.

QFT

[akoff 0]

From time to time I will debate people on these issues, usually through e-mail with people that I actually know. I find that people don't really change their mind all of a sudden on the internet so debates don't solve anything at all. They are just exercises in trying to prove the other guy wrong and there is literally nothing positive that comes out of them. Some shares their point of view, another one disagrees, then OP disagrees, the other guys disagrees more... repeat ENDLESSLY.Facts ALWAYS gets distorted and worse, words get twisted. For example, I never said, "McCain is old and is going to die soon" but that gets posted and credited to me, and all of a sudden I said it! I'm happy to share my thoughts or views then have the rest of you guys go to town on it, lol. Some supporting, some arguing against. In fact, I plan on starting another barn burner thread debating that the GOP do NOT represent Jesus' core beliefs on several key issues. The GOP has always been viewed as "God's party" but when you look closer at the policy differences you will actually find that a lot of GOP policies go firmly against the teachings of Jesus. Jesus wanted everyone to eat and be taken care of... whether they are heathens or not. That's a whooooole new debate- that one I might actually jump into because I feel strongly about it as well as knowledgeable enough to add a lot to he thread.

OMG....please please do this. I can see a full days enterainment coming from that topic.

[CaneBrain 95]

But what we have now is BETTER than what they have now. Why should we strive toward something worse and "steal" the money that people make to implement it?Why should anyone be outraged at the relationship between CEO pay and average workers pay? If anyone could do the CEOs job the CEO wouldnt be paid as much as he is. Executive pay is subject to the same market forces as everyone elses pay.

i disagree that what we have now is better. at best, it's a tie. we should be striving towards a plan where all Americans have health care. anything less is shameful imo.if the market forces have resulted in that quick of a growing disparity btw executive pay and worker pay than the market is rigged---which is basically the argument of Dems who think de-regulation of industry has allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. and after reading about the ridiculous salaries and golden parachutes for big time execs in the corporate world I tend to agree with them. Some of the cases I had to write about for Business Associations would be hilarious if they were not so sad. (Michael Ovitz' tenure at Disney being a great example)----there are two possibilities: the market is fine and CEO's are just worth 300+ times as much as a worker Or the market is out of whack and execs are reaping a whirlwind while the wages of the poor and middle class stagnate. Obviously, I know where you stand.

[copernicus 0]

i disagree that what we have now is better. at best, it's a tie. we should be striving towards a plan where all Americans have health care. anything less is shameful imo.

everybody does have access to health care

[CaneBrain 95]

everybody does have access to health care

everyone has access to some level of health care. one major illness is often enough to put a family in debt forever. or they are forced to make choices about their health care nobody should have to make.we should be striving for perfection when it comes to health care not settling for an ok system.

[copernicus 0]

everyone has access to some level of health care. one major illness is often enough to put a family in debt forever. or they are forced to make choices about their health care nobody should have to make.we should be striving for perfection when it comes to health care not settling for an ok system.

I disagree that nobody should have to make health care choices. Despite the emotional buttons pushed by the topic, ultimately health care is a consumer decision. If someone wants "Cadillac health care" and can afford it, why should someone who can "only afford" "Taurus health care" be entitled to the same level?Perhaps the "Taurus" consumer should sacrifice his big screen TV, the house and car that he really cant afford etc, and buy "Cadillac health care". But instead you apparently want the person who got an education and worked his ass off to accumulate his wealth to subsidize everyone elses health care.Simple fact : socialized health cared does not raise the quality of health care for the less wealthy, it lowers the quality of health care for everyone else to the level of the less wealthy. Take a look at the proportion of Canadian license plates around medical facilities in the northern border states if you think Canada is such a shining light of socialized health care. Talk like I have to Canadian families where the father was out of work and in pain for a year and half waiting for knee surgery, or his son, a pro-caliber hockey player had to come to the US for ACL reconstruction because the techniques in Canada hadnt advanced to the point where his potential career could have been saved. Or talk to my boss, a Canadian ex-pat with a wife who suffered a crippling aneuryism, but who is thankful that it happened in the US because her chances of survival were far lower if it happened in Canada.And they accomplish that low level of service and quality while they enjoy the US subsidizing their prescription medical costs.When you strive for perfection for all, you wind up subjecting everyone to mediocrity.

[jmkiser 0]

The idea that "if you can't afford it, it's provided" isn't really true.There are many of us who can barely afford, but suffer for doing so.I had to go the emergency room a few years ago because I had problems breathing properly. I later discovered that I had developed a form of acute bronchial asthma. Well, just the trip to the emergency room cost over $700. At the time, that was A LOT OF MONEY and was a complete overabundance considering that the most I did was drink some water and have a doctor take a look at me for about 5 minutes. It really really hurt me financially for a good 1/2 of the year. The emergency room trip even cost more then an actual doctor visit that my parents were able to set up with through a friend. The problem, though, was that I wasn't poor enough to get it covered or even get a discount.When it comes to health care, that shouldn't happen. No one should fear receiving basic treatment when they really need it because of the financial burden. By covering the basis for everyone, you can still have a thriving system for everything above that level. It won't hurt innovation, drug manufacturing, etc etc etc.If a person's future is based off their constant need to be in top shape, then they can spend the money on health insurance (that covers them from top to bottom).

[Chet Steadman 0]

Haha, as an admitted n00b (but FCP creeper for years), you gotta love when some new clown fires up a garble-laced rant attacking someone for having an opinion that differs from his. Hey OP, George W. endorsed McCain tonight and spoke at the RNC. Check it, bud. GOP ftw.

[Jimako03 0]

GARDENHOSA!.............YOUR IN.

[Jeepster80125 0]

The idea that "if you can't afford it, it's provided" isn't really true.There are many of us who can barely afford, but suffer for doing so.I had to go the emergency room a few years ago because I had problems breathing properly. I later discovered that I had developed a form of acute bronchial asthma. Well, just the trip to the emergency room cost over $700. At the time, that was A LOT OF MONEY and was a complete overabundance considering that the most I did was drink some water and have a doctor take a look at me for about 5 minutes. It really really hurt me financially for a good 1/2 of the year. The emergency room trip even cost more then an actual doctor visit that my parents were able to set up with through a friend. The problem, though, was that I wasn't poor enough to get it covered or even get a discount.When it comes to health care, that shouldn't happen. No one should fear receiving basic treatment when they really need it because of the financial burden. By covering the basis for everyone, you can still have a thriving system for everything above that level. It won't hurt innovation, drug manufacturing, etc etc etc.If a person's future is based off their constant need to be in top shape, then they can spend the money on health insurance (that covers them from top to bottom).

Did you have health insurance at the time?What does this mean exactly? What sort of minimum benefit do you propose? Do you include coverage for prescriptions? Who pays for this? If we all had a plan "covering the basis" for everyone, your example of your emergency room trip doesn't fall under 'fearing ... basic treatment'. Going to the emergency room is an emergency. It's going to cost more than an ordinary office visit. I would venture a guess that the same tests could be done for the cost of a copay in an office visit type setting. The problem with your example, and a major burden on our nations health care system, is people using the emergency room for their health care. The amount of non-emergent claims coming through the emergency room due to not having insurance is staggering. Like Copernicus said, there is insurance available for those who want to pay for it. Even for people with pre-existing conditions, there are plenty of safety nets to cover them. Just because people are too lazy or choose to spend money elsewhere doesn't make it my problem to pay for it, as a person with insurance. My insurance goes up every year because I have to subsidize the insurance for those people who receive care without insurance (like through ERs). We don't need to offer basic coverage for everyone because it already exists.Our system is based on a free market, and that's the best option out there. Socializing health care won't do anything to reduce costs or help the problems with the current system. Do people really want the government to run and manage another program, this one 1/7th the size of our economy? I don't think so.

[CaneBrain 95]

Haha, as an admitted n00b (but FCP creeper for years), you gotta love when some new clown fires up a garble-laced rant attacking someone for having an opinion that differs from his. Hey OP, George W. endorsed McCain tonight and spoke at the RNC. Check it, bud. GOP ftw.

considering GWB's opinion rating.....McCain might have been better off if Bush endorsed Obama.Throw the HIGH.....STINKY.....LIMBURGER!!!!

[copernicus 0]

considering GWB's opinion rating.....McCain might have been better off if Bush endorsed Obama.Throw the HIGH.....STINKY.....LIMBURGER!!!!

Considering Congress' opinion rating Obama might have been better off running as an indie. I prefer Liederkranz to Limburger, unfortunately it isnt made anymore...and unless you were a McSorley's denizen you probably never heard of it!

[jmkiser 0]

...

Short version:I'm arguing a basic form of coverage, not a full out socialized health care system where the government takes over an industry. Innovation and competition would work the same in the market as they always have. I'm also arguing on a purely social basis (which is something I almost never do... I'm not much of a liberal) in the manner that basic coverage should be an ideal on par with police or firefighters. As far as a logistics basis goes, my idea is an overhaul of our outlook on health for Americans, but my suggestions are on a smaller scale then many government programs that exist already in this country.. Wall of text version:Did you have health insurance at the time?I have never been able to afford or have had a job that legitmately offers it. I do recognize that most corporate companies offer it, but the lowest of the low jobs (Circuit City sales employees, for example) get it right up the ass. It's near impossible to find a position that is 40 legitimate hours a week. Your average corporate company works hard to make sure you put in 30-35 hours a week at the most. Why? The cost of full-time benefits doesn't equal what the position is worth in their eyes.What does this mean exactly? What sort of minimum benefit do you propose?I, honestly, do not have 100% of the exact information. When I say basic coverage, I do mean at LEAST some sort of a diagnosis from a legitimate doctor at the least. I do think we can do more then that, but that would be my minimum starting point. The average person around my wage group unnecessarily suffers when they could at least get some sound advice. My typical first idea when I get sick is to call in to a local hospital and try to get a nurse to talk with me. I socialize as much as I can to get personal advice to my questions (do you really think these symptoms are worth coming in for? what would you do?). Health insurance is NOT common or affordable and when sickness does come, most people make the conscious choice not to get help or even looked at because of the cost. A bad cough and a runny nose can mean a lot of things.Do you include coverage for prescriptions?Oh no no no. I'm not talking about involving drug companies.Who pays for this? First off, the incredible amount of unnecessary taxes that we already pay is more then enough for even a basic plan of action. It is true that most taxes initiated, for the purpose of a short term project, are almost NEVER rid of. A responsible and honest government could alleviate massive amounts of government spending that would cover the most basic of programs that I speak of. Plus, and please help me if I'm wrong, but I heard that the amount of taxes we already pay for other programs would cover the health care systems in other countries (on our scale of course) many times over. I'd have to find the information I read to back that up, though. The problem with your example, and a major burden on our nations health care system, is people using the emergency room for their health care.You're really creating a strawman argument. I'm not talking about just placing government paid for emergency rooms all over the place. I am talking about a major overhaul of the way we look at health care. A government paid for standard as the basis. Above that, you can have all the private practices you want. If Joe Blow doesn't want the government provided service, then he can opt to see who ever he chooses to see. This is just my personal SOCIAL opinion, but not providing the basics for all citizens feels inhumane to me. The competitive market wouldn't even notice and there would, most likely, be even less government interference (considering all of the current ridiculous "programs" that we could finally get rid of).Just because people are too lazy or choose to spend money elsewhere doesn't make it my problem to pay for itBut that's the problem. It's not laziness or choosing to spend money elsewhere. You have to understand, there is a bottom rung right before you get categorized as "needing assistance". There is a cut-off level to the point when it comes to assistance. Most honest hard-working people that don't make that much in wages are above the cut-off point where the government provides. Health insurance, whether you like it or not, is MUCH too costly to pay for every month for a lot of us. People are left with the decision of another monthly payment that is a significant portion of their take home wages or to just go ahead and risk it. When it comes to sickness, I believe that shouldn't be an issue that a citizen of a society should have to make. Basic coverage doesn't magically exist for everyone like you think it does. If it does, then please tell my roommates and I where we can go to get covered.Remember, my argument is based off of my personal feelings regarding the social matters of the way we look at the issue in this country. When it comes to people being hurt or sick, I care less and less about laziness or choosing to spend the money elsewhere. I relate it to a policemen or firefighters. Certain people would definitely be stupid and choose to risk not buying their services. But I don't think that should be a choice that anyone should have to make (police force, fire fighters, and basic health care).Our system is based on a free market, and that's the best option out there. I disagree that it's the best option out there because it leaves a lot of people behind even though you'd love to think that it doesn't. Is our system the most competitive? Yes. Is our system the most compassionate? Not by a long shot. And even though I, normally, NEVER care about being compassionate, this is one of those cases. You're biggest misunderstanding of what I'm talking about is not a complete socialization of the health market. The competitive market in drugs and technological innovation works in the same manner. On it's own two feet just like it has forever. I'm the last person in the world to ask the government to take over all forms of health care. And if you really hear what I'm trying to say to you, you'll see that I'm not a socialist fanboy.

[Nimue1995 1]

Short version:I'm arguing a basic form of coverage, not a full out socialized health care system where the government takes over an industry. Innovation and competition would work the same in the market as they always have. I'm also arguing on a purely social basis (which is something I almost never do... I'm not much of a liberal) in the manner that basic coverage should be an ideal on par with police or firefighters. As far as a logistics basis goes, my idea is an overhaul of our outlook on health for Americans, but my suggestions are on a smaller scale then many government programs that exist already in this country.. Wall of text version:Did you have health insurance at the time?I have never been able to afford or have had a job that legitmately offers it. I do recognize that most corporate companies offer it, but the lowest of the low jobs (Circuit City sales employees, for example) get it right up the ass. It's near impossible to find a position that is 40 legitimate hours a week. Your average corporate company works hard to make sure you put in 30-35 hours a week at the most. Why? The cost of full-time benefits doesn't equal what the position is worth in their eyes.What does this mean exactly? What sort of minimum benefit do you propose?I, honestly, do not have 100% of the exact information. When I say basic coverage, I do mean at LEAST some sort of a diagnosis from a legitimate doctor at the least. I do think we can do more then that, but that would be my minimum starting point. The average person around my wage group unnecessarily suffers when they could at least get some sound advice. My typical first idea when I get sick is to call in to a local hospital and try to get a nurse to talk with me. I socialize as much as I can to get personal advice to my questions (do you really think these symptoms are worth coming in for? what would you do?). Health insurance is NOT common or affordable and when sickness does come, most people make the conscious choice not to get help or even looked at because of the cost. A bad cough and a runny nose can mean a lot of things.Do you include coverage for prescriptions?Oh no no no. I'm not talking about involving drug companies.Who pays for this? First off, the incredible amount of unnecessary taxes that we already pay is more then enough for even a basic plan of action. It is true that most taxes initiated, for the purpose of a short term project, are almost NEVER rid of. A responsible and honest government could alleviate massive amounts of government spending that would cover the most basic of programs that I speak of. Plus, and please help me if I'm wrong, but I heard that the amount of taxes we already pay for other programs would cover the health care systems in other countries (on our scale of course) many times over. I'd have to find the information I read to back that up, though. The problem with your example, and a major burden on our nations health care system, is people using the emergency room for their health care.You're really creating a strawman argument. I'm not talking about just placing government paid for emergency rooms all over the place. I am talking about a major overhaul of the way we look at health care. A government paid for standard as the basis. Above that, you can have all the private practices you want. If Joe Blow doesn't want the government provided service, then he can opt to see who ever he chooses to see. This is just my personal SOCIAL opinion, but not providing the basics for all citizens feels inhumane to me. The competitive market wouldn't even notice and there would, most likely, be even less government interference (considering all of the current ridiculous "programs" that we could finally get rid of).Just because people are too lazy or choose to spend money elsewhere doesn't make it my problem to pay for itBut that's the problem. It's not laziness or choosing to spend money elsewhere. You have to understand, there is a bottom rung right before you get categorized as "needing assistance". There is a cut-off level to the point when it comes to assistance. Most honest hard-working people that don't make that much in wages are above the cut-off point where the government provides. Health insurance, whether you like it or not, is MUCH too costly to pay for every month for a lot of us. People are left with the decision of another monthly payment that is a significant portion of their take home wages or to just go ahead and risk it. When it comes to sickness, I believe that shouldn't be an issue that a citizen of a society should have to make. Basic coverage doesn't magically exist for everyone like you think it does. If it does, then please tell my roommates and I where we can go to get covered.Remember, my argument is based off of my personal feelings regarding the social matters of the way we look at the issue in this country. When it comes to people being hurt or sick, I care less and less about laziness or choosing to spend the money elsewhere. I relate it to a policemen or firefighters. Certain people would definitely be stupid and choose to risk not buying their services. But I don't think that should be a choice that anyone should have to make (police force, fire fighters, and basic health care).Our system is based on a free market, and that's the best option out there. I disagree that it's the best option out there because it leaves a lot of people behind even though you'd love to think that it doesn't. Is our system the most competitive? Yes. Is our system the most compassionate? Not by a long shot. And even though I, normally, NEVER care about being compassionate, this is one of those cases. You're biggest misunderstanding of what I'm talking about is not a complete socialization of the health market. The competitive market in drugs and technological innovation works in the same manner. On it's own two feet just like it has forever. I'm the last person in the world to ask the government to take over all forms of health care. And if you really hear what I'm trying to say to you, you'll see that I'm not a socialist fanboy.

QFT! There are many many Montanans that can't afford even basic health insurance. They don't have big screen TVs or nice cars or any of the other luxuries that you seem to think they pay for instead of health insurance. Their paychecks go to pay for shelter, food on the table, utilities and basic transportation. If there's something left over it probably goes to pay for their kid's necessities over their own. When the average income for Montanans is around $30,000 per year there are many families below that who fall through the cracks.

[copernicus 0]

QFT! There are many many Montanans that can't afford even basic health insurance. They don't have big screen TVs or nice cars or any of the other luxuries that you seem to think they pay for instead of health insurance. Their paychecks go to pay for shelter, food on the table, utilities and basic transportation. If there's something left over it probably goes to pay for their kid's necessities over their own. When the average income for Montanans is around $30,000 per year there are many families below that who fall through the cracks.

Why do they need health coverage? The population is too sparse for their to be any accidents and no self-respecting bacteria/virus would live there so infection isnt a common problem. In the event some bug takes a wrong turn, runs out of gas and has to infect someone, then there sure as hell arent any doctors that would practice there, and with the price of gas they cant afford driving to the nearest habitable state. While I do have sympathy for the working poor, if they only make 35k a year (the median family income), then get out there and pick more dental floss.

[Nimue1995 1]

Why do they need health coverage? The population is too sparse for their to be any accidents and no self-respecting bacteria/virus would live there so infection isnt a common problem.We have several urban areas that would be considered small cities in other states - Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, Kalispell and we have one of the fastest growing populations in the U.S. so there must be something good about the state. Just because your skin is too thin from living in Southern California doesn't mean that we can't handle the cold and snow. And I'm sure all the people living in the Northern tier states and Alaska appreciate your compassion. In the event some bug takes a wrong turn, runs out of gas and has to infect someone, then there sure as hell arent any doctors that would practice there, and with the price of gas they cant afford driving to the nearest habitable state. You're sure a dumbass sometimes Copernicus. We have doctors hospitals even *shock* gas stations. While I do have sympathy for the working poor, if they only make 35k a year (the median family income), then get out there and pick more dental floss.Not possible for many since IT COSTS MONEY TO MOVE YOU DUMBSHIT. And are you trying to tell me that the only state in the union that has working poor is MONTANA? I can tell why you identify so strongly with the Republican Party. They've always been out of touch with the people that don't have the advantages or education you have and this just proves it. Maybe there's people that just aren't as smart as you are either. And of course if they aren't then they don't deserve to live do they? Good Grief I had almost forgotten why I hate the Republican Party until you brought it all back to me. Thanks, you just made up my mind about the elections and actually after Palin's speech last night I was kinda on the fence. But now - GO OBAMA!

[copernicus 0]

rant rant rant

Remember what I said yesterday? Grow a sense of humor. Youre going to die very young if you dont lighten up a little.

[Nimue1995 1]

Remember what I said yesterday? Grow a sense of humor. Youre going to die very young if you dont lighten up a little.

My husband is already dying young. Have to stay alive long enough to take care of him. After that who cares?

[jmkiser 0]

Heh, that was funny Copernicus. And thank you for your honest response to my post, Nimue.The realistic level of debate just comes down to a difference of social opinion.

[CaneBrain 95]

Considering Congress' opinion rating Obama might have been better off running as an indie. I prefer Liederkranz to Limburger, unfortunately it isnt made anymore...and unless you were a McSorley's denizen you probably never heard of it!

Yeah although cheese is awesome so I am sure it was great.You also would have had to see the kids movie Rookie of the Year to get the high stinky limburger reference.

[copernicus 0]

Yeah although cheese is awesome so I am sure it was great.You also would have had to see the kids movie Rookie of the Year to get the high stinky limburger reference.

yup that one I missed. However, Liederkranz (similar to limburger) was stinkier than limburger ! The following will invoke disgust, possibly nausea, read at your own peril.

the odor of limburger is often compared to worn gym socks left in a locker for several months. Liederkranz then would have to be compared to the shoes of a sockless homeless person who hasnt taken them off for several months."You knowMy python boot is too tightI couldn't get it off last nightA week went byAnd now it's JulyI finally got it offAnd my girlfriend cried, YOU GOT STINK-FOOT!Stink-foot, darlin' "