PDA

View Full Version : Tax Dollars fund Shrimp on Treadmills


Pony Boy
05-26-2011, 12:07 PM
Tax dollars fund shrimp on treadmills, Jell-O wrestling in Antarctica

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican the Senate’s top watchdog on government waste, in a new report Thursday, said taxpayer money has gone to fund such programs as Jell-O wrestling at the South Pole, testing shrimp’s exercise ability on a treadmill and a laundry-folding robot, all funded by the National Science Foundation.

The National Science Foundation agency paid $559,681 to test sick shrimp’s metabolism, which one researcher said was “the first time that shrimp have been exercised on a treadmill.”

The Science Foundation report noted that the researchers found sick shrimp “did not perform as well and did not recover as well from exercise as healthy shrimp.”

At a time when the federal government is struggling with record deficits and bumping up against its borrowing limit, Mr. Coburn said the agency is a prime example of the kinds of spending taxpayers should no longer tolerate.

“There is little, if any, obvious scientific benefit to some NSF projects, such as a YouTube rap video, a review of event ticket prices on stubhub.com, a ‘robot hoedown and rodeo,’ or a virtual recreation of the 1964/65 New York World’s Fair,” Mr. Coburn said in a letter to taxpayers he wrote introducing the 73-page report, documented by more than 350 footnotes.

National Science Foundation agency has an annual budget of $6.9 billion, and accounts for about one-fifth of all national taxpayer-funded research at colleges and universities.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/tax-dollars-shrimp-treadmills-jell-o-wrestling/

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMO8Pyi3UpY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMO8Pyi3UpY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

OABB
05-26-2011, 12:12 PM
what a waste. that money should fund bailing out criminal bankers and stock brokers. damn obama.

Pony Boy
05-26-2011, 12:15 PM
what a waste. that money should fund bailing out criminal bankers and stock brokers. damn obama.

come on now don't get your panties in a wad ..........$559,681 to test sick shrimp’s metabolism......... think about it?

Inkana7
05-26-2011, 12:16 PM
If Jell-O wrestling is wrong I don't want to be right.

Pony Boy
05-26-2011, 12:20 PM
If Jell-O wrestling is wrong I don't want to be right.

Coburn’s report makes clear that the agency itself cracked down on some of the problems, including firing the organizer of the South Pole Jell-O wrestling event.

In a letter after his dismissal, the dismissed employee complained of “fun nazis” who had clamped down on him. ......LOL

bowtown
05-26-2011, 12:24 PM
The shrimp experiments were done to test how they would adapt to higher levels of bacteria and pollution run-off in the water due to climate change. The purpose is to see what kind of effects a warming planet will have on our food supply. It's not quite the pointless stoner game you would like to it to be.

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 12:26 PM
These are the types of things we should be doing away with.

We should also look at reducing federal employee staff...those things are way out of control.

maven
05-26-2011, 12:27 PM
and a laundry-folding robot


http://robotanime.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/JETSONS-COLOR-6.jpg

Do WANT!

Swedish Extrovert
05-26-2011, 12:27 PM
I've seen stuff on the laundry-folding robot. Actually some good stuff there.

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 12:27 PM
The shrimp experiments were done to test how they would adapt to higher levels of bacteria and pollution run-off in the water due to climate change. The purpose is to see what kind of effects a warming planet will have on our food supply. It's not quite the pointless stoner game you would like to it to be.

Its unnecessary.

The science grant game should be looked at in depth. There are alot of fields, climate change being one of them, that are near quackery.

broncocalijohn
05-26-2011, 12:29 PM
If Jell-O wrestling is wrong I don't want to be right.

Well, it did kill Blue you know.

Rohirrim
05-26-2011, 12:37 PM
The shrimp experiments were done to test how they would adapt to higher levels of bacteria and pollution run-off in the water due to climate change. The purpose is to see what kind of effects a warming planet will have on our food supply. It's not quite the pointless stoner game you would like to it to be.

Within fifty years, it is estimated that all of the world's coral reefs will be dead. Since the reefs are the foundation of the majority of seafood in the world, populations that rely on seafood as their main protein source will be at major risk of widespread starvation.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/09/coral-reefs-second-worst-beating-on-record-2010/

Inkana7
05-26-2011, 12:39 PM
Its unnecessary.

The science grant game should be looked at in depth. There are alot of fields, climate change being one of them, that are near quackery.

Hahaha you're just trolling us right?

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 12:50 PM
Hahaha you're just trolling us right?

Haha, nope.

Everyone who runs a lab knows it.

Inkana7
05-26-2011, 12:55 PM
Haha, nope.

Everyone who runs a lab knows it.

How many people do you know that runs a lab? Because I actually know a non-zero number.

55CrushEm
05-26-2011, 12:56 PM
http://robotanime.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/JETSONS-COLOR-6.jpg

Do WANT!

ROSIE !!! Ha!

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 01:00 PM
How many people do you know that runs a lab? Because I actually know a non-zero number.

Lets see...upwards of 50 or so?

Here's the game: tell 'em what they want to hear.

Its actually what they teach you in college. You tell your prof what they want to hear, and you get the A.

In the grant game, you apply for grants in fields that are political hot buttons and boom...money.

Are you familiar with the science behind aging?

bowtown
05-26-2011, 01:12 PM
Lets see...upwards of 50 or so?



You are so full of ****.

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 01:13 PM
You are so full of ****.

Are you familiar with aging science?

bowtown
05-26-2011, 01:22 PM
Are you familiar with aging science?

What about it?

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 01:24 PM
What about it?

Since you know so much about everything, maybe you can explain to me who gets grants.

So who gets grants?

Rohirrim
05-26-2011, 01:24 PM
Pull up your pants and head for high ground. ;D

Killericon
05-26-2011, 01:25 PM
No matter what you think about the shrimp running on a treadmill example, this is still complaining about $500k while billions are wasted elsewhere.

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 01:26 PM
No matter what you think about the shrimp running on a treadmill example, this is still complaining about $500k while billions are wasted elsewhere.

Every bit is important. 500K is 50 teacher salaries.

enjolras
05-26-2011, 01:33 PM
Every bit is important. 500K is 50 teacher salaries.

Who pays teachers $10k (I'm assuming a year)?

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 01:37 PM
Who pays teachers $10k (I'm assuming a year)?

Youre right.

500,000/10 = 50,000...dyslexic moment

Requiem
05-26-2011, 01:41 PM
I'm fine with the research. Costs less than an Apache heli.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2011, 01:45 PM
Yeah, whatever. This is hardly the problem

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 01:51 PM
I'm fine with the research. Costs less than an Apache heli.

Yeah, its not your money so hey! Why not?

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2011, 01:56 PM
Yeah, its not your money so hey! Why not?

i dont disagree that some pet projects might not be necessary (im not sure the reason for this one, but im sure its not to waste time) but to point out things like this, suggesting in any way that THIS is the problem, is missing the point. Bush tax cuts/medicare part D/iraq afghanistan/financial crisis...

thats where the deficit comes from. Not "pork"

Requiem
05-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Yeah, its not your money so hey! Why not?

The cost of this project per tax payer is so miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

I have no problem funding research that explores future problems regarding stability in our ecosystems.

If you want to discuss budget concerns, we can do that. This research doesn't even register as a blip on that radar.

Sound fiscal policy requires knowing where to correctly gut erroneous spending. Start with the biggest waste, then move down. Not the other way around.

Apologies for typos, I'm on my mobile.

DivineLegion
05-26-2011, 02:16 PM
Since you know so much about everything, maybe you can explain to me who gets grants.

So who gets grants?


Two key notes you should research are p53 protein, and Glutathione. Both, while not necessarily products of aging research, have become huge focus groups in the science of aging, and led to hefty amounts of research (in conjunction with Cancer research).

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 02:17 PM
Apologies for typos, I'm on my mobile.

NO! YOU WILL NOT BE FURGIVEN FUR TYPOES!!!!!

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 02:20 PM
Two key notes you should research are p53 protein, and Glutathione. Both, while not necessarily products of aging research, have become huge focus groups in the science of aging, and led to hefty amounts of research (in conjunction with Cancer research).

So whats the deal with muscle and nervous tissue?

DivineLegion
05-26-2011, 02:25 PM
So whats the deal with muscle and nervous tissue?

There is a world of knowledge you are asking for, either I need a specific question, or you need take a Biology/AP class at your local community college. So, if you want an answer to your vague question you are going to have to tighten it up, and stop playing politics.

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 02:29 PM
There is a world of knowledge you are asking for, either I need a specific question, or you need take a Biology/AP class at your local community college. So, if you want an answer to your vague question you are going to have to tighten it up, and stop playing politics.

No, theres a specific problem I am referring to that you should know when I bring up the subject.

So you dont know what I'm referring to?

DivineLegion
05-26-2011, 02:35 PM
No, theres a specific problem I am referring to that you should know when I bring up the subject.

So you dont know what I'm referring to?

Enlighten me. Does it have anything to do with G0 or Tolemerase?

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 02:44 PM
Enlighten me. Does it have anything to do with G0 or Tolemerase?

Telomerases are always involved, but there's something having to do with neural and muscle cells that renders the aging game one of smoke and mirrors.

Pony Boy
05-26-2011, 03:32 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMO8Pyi3UpY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMO8Pyi3UpY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Chris
05-26-2011, 03:36 PM
Was worth it for the video.

Pair that with Barry White and it's like meditation.

Pony Boy
05-26-2011, 03:52 PM
$500 Million Obama Administration Program Will Help Kids 'Sit Still' in Kindergarten

(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that the administration's new $500 million early learning initiative is designed to deal with children from birth onward to prevent such problems as 5-year olds who "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.

“You really need to look at the range of issues, because if a 5-year-old can’t sit still, it is unlikely that they can do well in a kindergarten class, and it has to be the whole range of issues that go into healthy child development,” Sebelius said during a telephone news conference on Wednesday to announce the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-early-learning-initiatives-need

Drek
05-26-2011, 04:05 PM
$500 Million Obama Administration Program Will Help Kids 'Sit Still' in Kindergarten

(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that the administration's new $500 million early learning initiative is designed to deal with children from birth onward to prevent such problems as 5-year olds who "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.

“You really need to look at the range of issues, because if a 5-year-old can’t sit still, it is unlikely that they can do well in a kindergarten class, and it has to be the whole range of issues that go into healthy child development,” Sebelius said during a telephone news conference on Wednesday to announce the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-early-learning-initiatives-need

Sounds like a good ****ing program to me.

More and more kids are going through a cookie cutter elementary school program of enter kindergarten, bar so low the all move on. Get to first, bar so low they all move on. Then when they get somewhere between 2nd and 5th grade a teacher says they're woefully behind, that teacher is already overwhelmed with 20+ kid classes and can't make up the difference, and the system labels him "ADD" or "ADHD" and gives him prescription drugs to make him into a ****ing muppet for the next 15 years.

Trying to sort out the MASSIVE over diagnosis of ADD, ADHD, and other learning disabilities at the root source and not when kids are already years behind their peers sounds like a damn good place to throw some funding.

You know, if you really believe the whole "our kids are the future" deal, or even think we should be something other than a socially cannibalistic anarchy state.

Boomhauer
05-26-2011, 04:18 PM
The science grant game should be looked at in depth. ...

This. All of America's Federal science endeavours should be consolidated into a single department with overlapping agendas and programs combined. Cutting one check for all science programs also prevents special interest waste and focuses funds where it's needed most. ie:
The Science and Energy Department (current location)
- Nat Laboratories and Technology Centers (DOE)
- Nat Science Foundation (independent)
- Nat Air and Space Administration (independent)
- Nat Nuclear Security Administration (DOE)
- Nat Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)
- Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs (DOS)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS)
- Nat Institutes of Health (HHS)
- Nat Institute of Standards and Technology (DOC)
- Patent and Trademark Office (DOC)

May 25th, 2011 - Former Senator and Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmitt wrote an op-ed calling for the dismantling of NASA. A new, focused agency with the sole purpose of space exploration would take its place and frivolous side agendas would be partitioned off to the administrations listed above. Combining them into one department is my suggestion.
http://americasuncommonsense.com/
-snips- "... For Presidents and the media, NASA’s activities became an occasional tragedy or budgetary distraction rather than the window to the future envisioned by Eisenhower, Kennedy and the Apollo generation. For Congress, rather than being viewed as a national necessity, NASA became a source of politically acceptable “pork barrel spending” in states and districts with NASA Centers, large contractors, or concentrations of sub-contractors. Neither taxpayers nor the Nation benefit significantly from this current, self-centered rationale for a space program. Is there a path forward for United States’ space policy? When a new President takes office in 2013, he or she should propose to Congress that we start space policy and its administration from scratch. A new agency, the National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA), should be charged with specifically enabling America’s and its partners’ exploration of deep space, inherently stimulating education, technology, and national focus. The existing component parts of NASA should be spread among other agencies with the only exception being activities related to U.S. obligations to its partners in the International Space Station (ISS).
...
The easiest change to make would be to move NASA Space Science activities into the National Science Foundation (NSF), exclusive of lunar and planetary exploration science but including space-based astronomical observatories. At the NSF, those activities can compete for support and funding with other science programs that are in the national interest to pursue. ... With this transfer, the NSF would assume responsibility for the space science activities of the Goddard Space Flight Center and for the contract with Caltech to run the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Also, in a similarly logical and straightforward way, NASA’s climate and other earth science research could become part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA could make cooperative arrangements with the NSF for use of the facilities and capabilities of the Goddard Space Flight Center related to development and operation of weather and other remote sensing satellites. Next, NASA aeronautical research and technology activities should be placed in a re-creation of NASA’s highly successful precursor, the NACA. Within this new-old agency, the Langley Research Center, Glenn Research Center, and Dryden Flight Research Center could be reconstituted as pure aeronautical research and technology laboratories as they were originally.
...
NSEA would be charged solely with the human exploration of deep space and the re-establishment and maintenance of American dominance as a space-faring nation. The new Agency’s responsibilities should include robotic exploration necessary to support its primary mission. As did the Apollo Program, NSEA should include lunar and planetary science and resource identification as a major component of its human space exploration and development initiatives. ... NSEA would assume responsibility for facilities and infrastructure at the Johnson Space Center (spacecraft, training, communications, and flight operations), Marshall Space Flight Center (launch vehicles), Stennis Space Center (rocket engine test), and Kennedy Space Center (launch operations). Through those Centers, NSEA would continue to support NASA’s operational obligations related to the International Space Station. NSEA should have the authority, however, to reduce as well as enhance the capital assets of those Centers as necessary to meet its overall mission. ..."

Pony Boy
05-26-2011, 04:23 PM
Sounds like a good ****ing program to me.

More and more kids are going through a cookie cutter elementary school program of enter kindergarten, bar so low the all move on. Get to first, bar so low they all move on. Then when they get somewhere between 2nd and 5th grade a teacher says they're woefully behind, that teacher is already overwhelmed with 20+ kid classes and can't make up the difference, and the system labels him "ADD" or "ADHD" and gives him prescription drugs to make him into a ****ing muppet for the next 15 years.

Trying to sort out the MASSIVE over diagnosis of ADD, ADHD, and other learning disabilities at the root source and not when kids are already years behind their peers sounds like a damn good place to throw some funding.

You know, if you really believe the whole "our kids are the future" deal, or even think we should be something other than a socially cannibalistic anarchy state.

The question is why do we need a 500 million dollar program to "Help Kids 'Sit Still' in Kindergarten? The teachers should be able to make this function happen, it's called teaching. The problem is that discipline has disappeared from the classroom and throwing money at it isn't going to help.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2011, 04:33 PM
The question is why do we need a 500 million dollar program to "Help Kids 'Sit Still' in Kindergarten? The teachers should be able to make this function happen, it's called teaching. The problem is that discipline has disappeared from the classroom and throwing money at it isn't going to help.

I think youre taking that too literally, though i do agree our education needs a complete culture change. Now if that 500 mil is included in an effort for universal pre-K, im all for it.

Pony Boy
05-26-2011, 04:39 PM
I think youre taking that too literally, though i do agree our education needs a complete culture change. Now if that 500 mil is included in an effort for universal pre-K, im all for it.

Agreed, we do need a change or return to what once worked. Do you remember what happened to you if you didn't sit still in class?

Jetmeck
05-26-2011, 05:35 PM
Guys this does border on stupidity. Although I like Jello wrestling and even indulged once in my youth. lol. At least with the shrimp we could be learning something about our environmental changes in process.....possibly something to learn.

Giving 4 billion a year to oil companies....well the only thing we learn there is the politicians can be bought and that 4 billion is doing absolutely nothing but making the rich, richer. I vote for the shrimp in this case.

Jetmeck
05-26-2011, 05:37 PM
The question is why do we need a 500 million dollar program to "Help Kids 'Sit Still' in Kindergarten? The teachers should be able to make this function happen, it's called teaching. The problem is that discipline has disappeared from the classroom and throwing money at it isn't going to help.

Discipline is not missing from the classroom, the teachers cant touch them and they know it. Discipline is missing from the child's home. Don't blame the teacher for disrespectful little heathens who have been taught zero at home.

Swedish Extrovert
05-26-2011, 05:57 PM
I actually just wrote a paper on R&D in the United States. I think the righties on the forum would realize that generally they’d probably agree more than they disagree despite this:

These R&D elements are crucial if you want America to remain an economic superpower. There is a reason that, despite being 24th in math and 19th in science that most scientific breakthroughs come from the USA, and we have a stranglehold on China in that regard.

Truth be told, 6.9 billion is about $21 per person in the US. I think it’s worth it, especially for programs like this. Anyone who thinks that climate change is a pseudoscience has been brainwashed.

I’ve looked at the budget extensively (MA candidate in economics), and if anyone can find a way to fix the budget without cutting Medicare and restructuring social security, they’re a smarter man/woman than I.

Frankly, I think Obama’s doing a great job, but I’d vote for Paul Ryan is he ran for President.

Taco John
05-26-2011, 06:08 PM
No matter what you think about the shrimp running on a treadmill example, this is still complaining about $500k while billions are wasted elsewhere.

That $500k on shrimp treadmills could help some families in Joplin.

Taco John
05-26-2011, 06:10 PM
The cost of this project per tax payer is so miniscule in the grand scheme of things.


So is every project. It's what they all add up to that matters.

Swedish Extrovert
05-26-2011, 06:14 PM
Mohair

Rohirrim
05-26-2011, 06:21 PM
Republican economic theory: Attack the $6 billion arts and science programs while not touching a single hair on the massively bloated $720 billion dollar defense budget.

Swedish Extrovert
05-26-2011, 06:24 PM
Republican economic theory: Attack the $6 billion arts and science programs while not touching a single hair on the massively bloated $720 billion dollar defense budget.

Not all Republicans are like that. Case in point: me.

Requiem
05-26-2011, 07:01 PM
So is every project. It's what they all add up to that matters.

I get this. See Roh's post.

Swedish Extrovert
05-26-2011, 07:08 PM
Pork Barrel spending is less than 1 percent of the budget.
Defense is less than 5 percent of the budget.
Education is about 6 percent of the budget.
Health care is about 17 percent of the budget.

This is know for a fact.

And... the following numbers are guestimates, but fairly accurate:

Social security is over 30 percent of the budget
Medicare, last time I checked was nearly 30 as well.
Interest on debt is a great deal as well.

Eliminating social security and medicare would eliminate much of the debt, which would in turn decrease interest payments.

DivineLegion
05-26-2011, 08:20 PM
Telomerases are always involved, but there's something having to do with neural and muscle cells that renders the aging game one of smoke and mirrors.

I'm curious please continue.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2011, 08:46 PM
Pork Barrel spending is less than 1 percent of the budget.
Defense is less than 5 percent of the budget.
Education is about 6 percent of the budget.
Health care is about 17 percent of the budget.

This is know for a fact.

And... the following numbers are guestimates, but fairly accurate:

Social security is over 30 percent of the budget
Medicare, last time I checked was nearly 30 as well.
Interest on debt is a great deal as well.

Eliminating social security and medicare would eliminate much of the debt, which would in turn decrease interest payments.

You cant "eliminate" SS and Medicare, two needed and two of the most popular programs in the united states. That said, our healthcare system is horridly bloated, but its not because of the social programs, its because of how they are designed. Lets not forget most of the world has some kind of universal healthcare system, and many have single payer and pay much less than we do for it.

You know what would help? Getting the F out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reinstate the bush tax cuts, and keep working on the healthcare bill which, in theory, does quite a bit for cost control. Instead of this BS about repealing it, keep working to make it better.

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 08:49 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMO8Pyi3UpY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMO8Pyi3UpY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Classic.

LOL

epicSocialism4tw
05-26-2011, 08:50 PM
I'm curious please continue.

Well...what's different about muscle and nervous tissue in development?

Swedish Extrovert
05-26-2011, 09:23 PM
You cant "eliminate" SS and Medicare, two needed and two of the most popular programs in the united states. That said, our healthcare system is horridly bloated, but its not because of the social programs, its because of how they are designed. Lets not forget most of the world has some kind of universal healthcare system, and many have single payer and pay much less than we do for it.

You know what would help? Getting the F out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reinstate the bush tax cuts, and keep working on the healthcare bill which, in theory, does quite a bit for cost control. Instead of this BS about repealing it, keep working to make it better.

We should Balkanize Iraq. Afghanistan is a mess, but we can't leave yet, but killing Osama was a step.

You're going to HAVE to roll back entitlements out of functional necessity. There is no other way to shake it. Not only is the retirement/worker ratio decreasing, but we've seen a dramatic expansion in the amount of time people can collect Medicare and social security and the average payout is three times what it was in 1950 (even when adjusted for inflation).

Look at the original bill by Roosevelt.... it stated that the purpose of SS was to keep the elderly out of poverty. Now, with Roth IRA's and 401k's, SS is no longer keeping seniors out of poverty. It's subsidizing their Mediterranean cruises and their Aspen vacation homes. Just ask my grandfather.

This is actually something that I disagree with the majority of my professors on. One of my graduate advisors is former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, and we've debated this extensively - he tells me if we eradicate SS, youth unemployment will rise because old people will have to work longer.

I argue if we eradicate Medicare they wouldn't live so long and markets will eventually equilibrate. Remember Lamm's "Duty to Die" comment - I might be on board with that.

I'm sorry, but I hate paying 12.4 percent of my payroll - money I will likely never see again - so that baby boomers can finance this ****. It's not my fault if people don't save and invest.

SS is parasitic to the economy. Old people collect SS, they get free universal health care, they ignore traffic rules, they call my generation morally decadent for having premarital sex and being accepting of gays. And they're so ****ing entitled... they think they've earned the right to be rude because they've been around forever. People born from 1930-1960 have really ****ed over my generation due to their decadent, selfish and greedy culture of entitlement.

Seriously, **** old people.

That said, scientific research is vital, so I don't really have a problem with the topic at hand.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2011, 09:36 PM
We should Balkanize Iraq. Afghanistan is a mess, but we can't leave yet, but killing Osama was a step.

You're going to HAVE to roll back entitlements out of functional necessity. There is no other way to shake it. Not only is the retirement/worker ratio decreasing, but we've seen a dramatic expansion in the amount of time people can collect Medicare and social security and the average payout is three times what it was in 1950 (even when adjusted for inflation).

Look at the original bill by Roosevelt.... it stated that the purpose of SS was to keep the elderly out of poverty. Now, with Roth IRA's and 401k's, SS is no longer keeping seniors out of poverty. It's subsidizing their Mediterranean cruises and their Aspen vacation homes. Just ask my grandfather.

This is actually something that I disagree with the majority of my professors on. One of my graduate advisors is former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, and we've debated this extensively - he tells me if we eradicate SS, youth unemployment will rise because old people will have to work longer.

I argue if we eradicate Medicare they wouldn't live so long and markets will eventually equilibrate. Remember Lamm's "Duty to Die" comment - I might be on board with that.

I'm sorry, but I hate paying 12.4 percent of my payroll - money I will likely never see again - so that baby boomers can finance this ****. It's not my fault if people don't save and invest.

SS is parasitic to the economy. Old people collect SS, they get free universal health care, they ignore traffic rules, they call my generation morally decadent for having premarital sex and being accepting of gays. And they're so ****ing entitled... they think they've earned the right to be rude because they've been around forever. People born from 1930-1960 have really ****ed over my generation due to their decadent, selfish and greedy culture of entitlement.

Seriously, **** old people.

That said, scientific research is vital, so I don't really have a problem with the topic at hand.

haha well if your argument is "**** old people" then sure, all your arguments make sense. If America were run like a business, we'd kill old people the minute they retire. But though your grandfather may use his SS checks for luxury (my parents probbaly do too), many dont. Most dont actually...i cant remember the stat that showed most old people need SS as part of their income to sustain themselves, but it was higher than I thought. I do actually think it should be need based, but i suppose thats hard to actually gauge. Point is, all these old people paid into the SS system and they are getting their money back at 65.

Re: medicare, this is really just a symptom of the problem of our bloated healthcare. Again, single payer isn't the failing mechinism here, it works in too many places and costs are down in those places for it to be the culprit. Also, There are more reasons why we are living longer that dont have to do with doctor care/medicine/so thats not your cureall...even still we're decent human beings that don't send our old off on an ice floe when they are useless. if you want to kill yourself at 70, go ahead, no one is stopping you. But you may not think that once you hit that age.

By the way, my 401k wont help much **** when im retired. Especially if (WHEN) there is another financial crisis and it all goes away.

DivineLegion
05-26-2011, 09:57 PM
Well...what's different about muscle and nervous tissue in development?

Muscles develop either by Hypertrophy (increas in size of the fibers) or Hyperplasia (increase in the number of fibers), and are formed from myoblasts during embryonic development. The nervous system develops from the ectoderm. While I don't mind the socratic nature of this conversation, I am begining to wonder when the full nature of the debate you are proposing is going to facilitate, if at all.

Swedish Extrovert
05-26-2011, 10:05 PM
haha well if your argument is "**** old people" then sure, all your arguments make sense. If America were run like a business, we'd kill old people the minute they retire. But though your grandfather may use his SS checks for luxury (my parents probbaly do too), many dont. Most dont actually...i cant remember the stat that showed most old people need SS as part of their income to sustain themselves, but it was higher than I thought. I do actually think it should be need based, but i suppose thats hard to actually gauge. Point is, all these old people paid into the SS system and they are getting their money back at 65.

Re: medicare, this is really just a symptom of the problem of our bloated healthcare. Again, single payer isn't the failing mechinism here, it works in too many places and costs are down in those places for it to be the culprit. Also, There are more reasons why we are living longer that dont have to do with doctor care/medicine/so thats not your cureall...even still we're decent human beings that don't send our old off on an ice floe when they are useless. if you want to kill yourself at 70, go ahead, no one is stopping you. But you may not think that once you hit that age.

By the way, my 401k wont help much **** when im retired. Especially if (WHEN) there is another financial crisis and it all goes away.

I started paying into my roth IRA in boot camp when I was 19. I'll live comfortably when I'm retired WITHOUT medicare and social security.

DivineLegion
05-26-2011, 11:21 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43187678

The rebutal:

"I sympathize with the desire to identify things that are silly and not useful," Hibbing told LiveScience. "But I'm not sure he's identified a really practical strategy to distinguish between the two."

AKA This guy is a freaking idiot and has no idea what he is talking about.

ol#7
05-27-2011, 12:49 AM
Wow, I am really not suprised that those who view this as a right vs left attack are on the defensive about this. Fact is, the govt wastes alot of money on things the taxpayer has no business funding. Thats not a right or left issue, just the truth. Medicare is a problem as mightysmurf points out because people can take out more than they paid in, and given inflation and a longer lived populace that will continue to be the case, but neither side will ever take this on. Healthcare reform without tort reform is a disaster. I dont see how anyone can support one without the other.

Rohirrim
05-27-2011, 07:55 AM
I see it as a very simple equation: Standing between you and your doctor is a massive, bloated, money churning industry called health insurance. That's where all your health care dollars are going - down the middle man toilet. Have everybody in America pay into Medicare. Everybody is covered. Costs plummet (no profit making insurance industry to support) and everybody is paying less than they pay now, putting all that excess back into the American worker's pockets and back into the economy. Let the insurance CEOs find some other way to build their mansions than on the backs of the sick.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2011, 08:04 AM
Not all Republicans are like that. Case in point: me.

Cool. To which house of Congress have you been elected?

Mr. Elway
05-27-2011, 10:37 AM
These days, if tax money was funding Isaac Newton himself, people would criticize the government for wasting money on apples.

Bronco Yoda
05-27-2011, 10:41 AM
We should Balkanize Iraq. Afghanistan is a mess, but we can't leave yet, but killing Osama was a step.

You're going to HAVE to roll back entitlements out of functional necessity. There is no other way to shake it. Not only is the retirement/worker ratio decreasing, but we've seen a dramatic expansion in the amount of time people can collect Medicare and social security and the average payout is three times what it was in 1950 (even when adjusted for inflation).

Look at the original bill by Roosevelt.... it stated that the purpose of SS was to keep the elderly out of poverty. Now, with Roth IRA's and 401k's, SS is no longer keeping seniors out of poverty. It's subsidizing their Mediterranean cruises and their Aspen vacation homes. Just ask my grandfather.

This is actually something that I disagree with the majority of my professors on. One of my graduate advisors is former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, and we've debated this extensively - he tells me if we eradicate SS, youth unemployment will rise because old people will have to work longer.

I argue if we eradicate Medicare they wouldn't live so long and markets will eventually equilibrate. Remember Lamm's "Duty to Die" comment - I might be on board with that.

I'm sorry, but I hate paying 12.4 percent of my payroll - money I will likely never see again - so that baby boomers can finance this ****. It's not my fault if people don't save and invest.

SS is parasitic to the economy. Old people collect SS, they get free universal health care, they ignore traffic rules, they call my generation morally decadent for having premarital sex and being accepting of gays. And they're so ****ing entitled... they think they've earned the right to be rude because they've been around forever. People born from 1930-1960 have really ****ed over my generation due to their decadent, selfish and greedy culture of entitlement.

Seriously, **** old people.

That said, scientific research is vital, so I don't really have a problem with the topic at hand.

Hilarious! I take it you're not going for the elderly vote. Do your grandparents screen their Grandparents day cards with an X-ray machine :giggle::giggle:

Bronco Yoda
05-27-2011, 10:49 AM
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/e1wW7hmgfns" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RocBronc
05-27-2011, 11:38 AM
These days, if tax money was funding Isaac Newton himself, people would criticize the government for wasting money on apples.

Why do politician's get to be invest other people's money that they aren't accountable for? i.e. they won't suffer any real financial loss if the the research is crap or poorly chosen? How many politicians (D or R) have the scientific/financial background to be anywhere near competent in this field?

There is a place that this type alot of research is supposed to take place... it's called colleges and universities. If a research idea is worth investing in, there will be people lined up to invest in it. If it's some sort of "altruistic" research please donate to your local college or university... there's plenty of that going on too.

Pony Boy
05-27-2011, 12:35 PM
I started paying into my roth IRA in boot camp when I was 19. I'll live comfortably when I'm retired WITHOUT medicare and social security.

Easier said than done, if you retired today at 62 and you had normal health issues, without medicare you insurance premium for good coverage would be about $1500 a month. You can double that if you are married and both you and your spouse are retired and also make sure you save enough for assisted living expense later in life that will run about 5K a month for a no frills nursing home.

elsid13
05-27-2011, 01:02 PM
Why do politician's get to be invest other people's money that they aren't accountable for? i.e. they won't suffer any real financial loss if the the research is crap or poorly chosen? How many politicians (D or R) have the scientific/financial background to be anywhere near competent in this field?

There is a place that this type alot of research is supposed to take place... it's called colleges and universities. If a research idea is worth investing in, there will be people lined up to invest in it. If it's some sort of "altruistic" research please donate to your local college or university... there's plenty of that going on too.

You do realize that 95% basic research being done on colleges and universities is done through block grants from the Federal Government right? There is little private monies to do fundamental studies.

Also Congress rarely get involved in directly funding scientific research (unless it become political issue re: Stem cells) and most of decision on what is funded is at the direction of PHDs/MDs at DoD/NSA/HHS/CDC ect via certified processes. There will be time Congressmen/women will fund a certain pet projects but they do have that right.

TailgateNut
05-28-2011, 01:32 AM
I started paying into my roth IRA in boot camp when I was 19. I'll live comfortably when I'm retired WITHOUT medicare and social security.


Tell that to those "old people" who lost the majority of their "nest eggs" when the markets went tits up.

Side note: next time you see me at the game, please tell me "**** old people".:~ohyah!:

Requiem
05-28-2011, 01:45 AM
I feel terrible for anyone who doesn't or cannot afford health insurance. I'm blessed that I have sweet coverage from my company and don't have to pay a dime for it because it's individual status.

A ten minute meeting with my nephrologist and one UA was supposed to cost me 300 bucks and I am going to be paying 50, which is pretty much just my co-pay for the visits. So thankful and blessed.

I wish everyone had that opportunity, especially elderly and those with families.

DivineLegion
05-28-2011, 02:14 AM
I feel terrible for anyone who doesn't or cannot afford health insurance. I'm blessed that I have sweet coverage from my company and don't have to pay a dime for it because it's individual status.

A ten minute meeting with my nephrologist and one UA was supposed to cost me 300 bucks and I am going to be paying 50, which is pretty much just my co-pay for the visits. So thankful and blessed.

I wish everyone had that opportunity, especially elderly and those with families.

Ah, and thus we reveal the nature of the beast. Most Labs bill crazy amounts of money for the tests they run to insurance companies because they only get about 10% back. The lab I work at bills insurance companies 3000-4000 dollars for allergy panels, and we get back 250-400 depending on the insururer. If someone walked in off the street and offered to pay cash we would probably charge them 200-300. Thats another downfall of insurance, our estimated medical costs per year are totally inflated because of how little insurers are willing to pay. IMHO it's a clever tactic that insures (pardon the pun) constant revenue, because they are scaring the living betebow out of potential customers.

Requiem
05-28-2011, 02:18 AM
I have to say, I know nothing about how all that stuff works. I'm just glad I'm saving money. *shrugs* Makes up for having to toss out all the money I saved working in college to pay my medical expenses not having insurance during my last relapse.

DivineLegion
05-28-2011, 02:52 AM
I understand, trust me I would not want to live in the US without health insurance. Labs are lineant, but Hospitals are like a bunch of blood sucking vampires just waiting to drain you of every penny you have. Another thing too, the lab I work at is the first place I have worked in the industry, so I can't gurantee that you would get the same treatment other places. We aren't your LabCorp, Quest, or ARUP, we actually strive to be fair with our billing. The corperate giants of the world could care less if they lose a customer. Millennium on the other hand is a growing company that will do what ever it takes to maintain a good standing with its clientel. From what I understand we are the black sheep of the lab world in the southeast because of how we do buisness. But black sheep and all we've been picking off LabCorps biggest accounts in NC since we started, and now have all of their largest accounts in the Peidmont, and coastal regions. 12 hour turn around time on all our tests but Microbiology with competative prices makes doctors (and patients) happy.

Requiem
05-28-2011, 03:00 AM
Yeah, my lab costs (even without insurance) weren't the problem or haven't been since this all happened.

The $200.00 bucks for my nephrologist to ask me a few questions, listen to my heart and say "Have a good day!" for ten minutes of his time was what got ridiculous every two weeks.

They have me scheduled to take a UA (to monitor protein leakage into my urine) every two weeks, and I've already skipped one and plan to skip my next -- considering I don't meet with him again until August and that I'm good enough to monitor myself and see if things are going wrong with me and need to up or lower my prednisone dosage.

Not going to pay for things when they never tell me the results anyways.

I hope if they schedule labs in advance and I don't go and do them, they don't charge me for them.

Do you know about that?

DivineLegion
05-28-2011, 03:23 AM
Yeah, my lab costs (even without insurance) weren't the problem or haven't been since this all happened.

The $200.00 bucks for my nephrologist to ask me a few questions, listen to my heart and say "Have a good day!" for ten minutes of his time was what got ridiculous every two weeks.

They have me scheduled to take a UA (to monitor protein leakage into my urine) every two weeks, and I've already skipped one and plan to skip my next -- considering I don't meet with him again until August and that I'm good enough to monitor myself and see if things are going wrong with me and need to up or lower my prednisone dosage.

Not going to pay for things when they never tell me the results anyways.

I hope if they schedule labs in advance and I don't go and do them, they don't charge me for them.

Do you know about that?

I don't think they will unless it's schedualed at your doctors office. However if your just going for your labs I don't see why you wouldn't do it. There is no office visit charge to piss in a cup (if you are going to the lab itself, or a draw station), they should only charge you for the test and if your coverage is decent, which it seems it is, that shouldn't cost you a dime.

Jetmeck
05-28-2011, 08:22 AM
We should Balkanize Iraq. Afghanistan is a mess, but we can't leave yet, but killing Osama was a step.

You're going to HAVE to roll back entitlements out of functional necessity. There is no other way to shake it. Not only is the retirement/worker ratio decreasing, but we've seen a dramatic expansion in the amount of time people can collect Medicare and social security and the average payout is three times what it was in 1950 (even when adjusted for inflation).

Look at the original bill by Roosevelt.... it stated that the purpose of SS was to keep the elderly out of poverty. Now, with Roth IRA's and 401k's, SS is no longer keeping seniors out of poverty. It's subsidizing their Mediterranean cruises and their Aspen vacation homes. Just ask my grandfather.

This is actually something that I disagree with the majority of my professors on. One of my graduate advisors is former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, and we've debated this extensively - he tells me if we eradicate SS, youth unemployment will rise because old people will have to work longer.

I argue if we eradicate Medicare they wouldn't live so long and markets will eventually equilibrate. Remember Lamm's "Duty to Die" comment - I might be on board with that.

I'm sorry, but I hate paying 12.4 percent of my payroll - money I will likely never see again - so that baby boomers can finance this ****. It's not my fault if people don't save and invest.

SS is parasitic to the economy. Old people collect SS, they get free universal health care, they ignore traffic rules, they call my generation morally decadent for having premarital sex and being accepting of gays. And they're so ****ing entitled... they think they've earned the right to be rude because they've been around forever. People born from 1930-1960 have really ****ed over my generation due to their decadent, selfish and greedy culture of entitlement.

Seriously, **** old people.

That said, scientific research is vital, so I don't really have a problem with the topic at hand.

Dude,

Until people like you wake up and realize that the Bush tax cuts were the first thing protected by the repubs and guess what the second thing was ? oil company subsidies

The republicans know what the rich and large companies bankrolling their campaigns had for lunch. When they do the right thing and get ****in rid of Bush tax cuts and welfare for big oil we'll talk about other things, until then back off medicare and social security.

Gawdamn repubs ****in with unions, wanting to cut all social programs and protecting their rich buddies...........anyone defending these pieces of chit is beyong delusional, has no common sense and OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT TAUGHT THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST PLAIN RIGHT AND WRONG !!!!!!

epicSocialism4tw
05-28-2011, 08:36 AM
Dude,

Until people like you wake up and realize that the Bush tax cuts were the first thing protected by the repubs and guess what the second thing was ? oil company subsidies

The republicans know what the rich and large companies bankrolling their campaigns had for lunch. When they do the right thing and get ****in rid of Bush tax cuts and welfare for big oil we'll talk about other things, until then back off medicare and social security.

Gawdamn repubs ****in with unions, wanting to cut all social programs and protecting their rich buddies...........anyone defending these pieces of chit is beyong delusional, has no common sense and OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT TAUGHT THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST PLAIN RIGHT AND WRONG !!!!!!

http://lastrow.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/agony-of-defeat.jpg

brncs_fan
05-28-2011, 08:48 AM
The question is why do we need a 500 million dollar program to "Help Kids 'Sit Still' in Kindergarten? The teachers should be able to make this function happen, it's called teaching. The problem is that discipline has disappeared from the classroom and throwing money at it isn't going to help.

The problem is that discipline has disappeared from the home and nothing short of restoring consequences for behavior is going to help.

ZONA
05-28-2011, 02:12 PM
Its unnecessary.

The science grant game should be looked at in depth. There are alot of fields, climate change being one of them, that are near quackery.

Oh lord, you're one of those guys huh? Global warming is a myth. Recently on Discovery channel the crew from the space shuttle were recoding the earth (from space obviously) and it was quite alarming how much de-forestation was going on. Almost every ocean and body of water had massive amount of brownish coloration to them near the shores and you could easily tell it's sediment because trees are being replaced with homes and buildings. And it's not just in the USA, China, India, etc. We all know there have been warming and cooling cycles but the amount of CO2 in the air has progressed a warming cycle that normally would not happen this fast. Glaciers don't just disappear within a few years. Not to get personal but I don't want some political driven nut jobs to tell us it's "no big deal" then in 50 years the Earth resembles Venus. It was the same thing with the economy. Regulations? Na, all the rich people are making too much money right now, we don't want those. What's the worse that could happen. LMAO. That's the ticket, let's all be irresponsible and do nothing.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-28-2011, 02:47 PM
Republicans HATE science!

Oh, wait we're broke.

Fedaykin
05-28-2011, 03:01 PM
The vast majority of all mockery of science projects is a result of the person who's doing the mocking not understanding what's really being tested and/or the complainer being dishonest in their reporting of the subject.

See the issue with the shrimp study and the obliviousness inherent in mocking it.

Fedaykin
05-28-2011, 03:04 PM
Every bit is important. 500K is 50 teacher salaries.

So you think teachers should make only 10k/yr?

Don't worry, I know you just are very poor at math.

Fedaykin
05-28-2011, 03:15 PM
That $500k on shrimp treadmills could help some families in Joplin.

One less Supercarrier would do thousands of times the good of that (and we'd still have ten times more Supercarriers than any other nation and 100% more than any potential enemy nation).

On the other hand, better understanding how shrimp react to changing climate (and thus how the most important ecological system on the planet will react) may save millions of lives. Pretty good ROI in my opinion.

This anti-intellectualism and anti-government funded research attitude you and others in this thread are presenting is despicable. Without basic R&D funded by the government you wouldn't have this message board to post your inanity on (or Supercarriers to defend your freedom).

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-28-2011, 03:20 PM
The vast majority of all mockery of science projects is a result of the person who's doing the mocking not understanding what's really being tested and/or the complainer being dishonest in their reporting of the subject.

See the issue with the shrimp study and the obliviousness inherent in mocking it.

Its not mockery if the fact is we broke.

DenverBrit
05-28-2011, 03:24 PM
Ah, and thus we reveal the nature of the beast. Most Labs bill crazy amounts of money for the tests they run to insurance companies because they only get about 10% back. The lab I work at bills insurance companies 3000-4000 dollars for allergy panels, and we get back 250-400 depending on the insururer. If someone walked in off the street and offered to pay cash we would probably charge them 200-300. Thats another downfall of insurance, our estimated medical costs per year are totally inflated because of how little insurers are willing to pay. IMHO it's a clever tactic that insures (pardon the pun) constant revenue, because they are scaring the living betebow out of potential customers.

Bingo! That's it in a nutshell. They make it too expensive NOT to be insured.
It's a license to print money by artificially inflating costs and the reason why US health care is the main cause of bankruptcies......even with health insurance, which illustrates how often coverage is denied.

Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance

Edit. This paragraph illustrates clearly why change must happen.

They found that a number of medical factors contributed to a family's financial disaster. More than 90% of medically related bankruptcies were caused by high medical bills directly or medical costs that were so high the family was forced to mortgage their home.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

Fedaykin
05-28-2011, 03:27 PM
Its not mockery if the fact is we broke.

And if the argument was "We're broke, so we need to cut everything, including the NSF budget, by 10%" you'd have a point.

But the argument here is clearly "We're broke -- let's use that as an excuse to cut things we don't like. Hey, those science types are uppity, let's attack them. I know, we can falsely represent this research to make it seem like we're just being practical! Also, WE NEED MORE BOMBS those brown people are getting uppity too!".

Fedaykin
05-28-2011, 03:28 PM
Bingo! That's it in a nutshell. They make it too expensive NOT to be insured.
It's a license to print money by artificially inflating costs and the reason why US health care is the main cause of bankruptcies......even with health insurance, which illustrates how often coverage is denied.



http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

Aye, just one more reason why treating health care as something "insurable" is insane.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-28-2011, 03:34 PM
And if the argument was "We're broke, so we need to cut everything, including the NSF budget, by 10%" you'd have a point.

But the argument here is clearly "We're broke -- let's use that as an excuse to cut things we don't like. Hey, those science types are uppity, let's attack them. I know, we can falsely represent this research to make it seem like we're just being practical! Also, WE NEED MORE BOMBS those brown people are getting uppity too!".

Wrong. Last report every major department is up on the chopping block including defense.

DenverBrit
05-28-2011, 03:38 PM
Aye, just one more reason why treating health care as something "insurable" is insane.

I've never been much of a Michael Moore fan, but his Health Care documentary, "Sicko" should be seen by everyone.

I've lived under 3 of the 5 healthcare systems he spotlights and can honestly say they are presented as they actually are. No agenda spin, just facts.

Jetmeck
05-28-2011, 04:10 PM
http://lastrow.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/agony-of-defeat.jpg

The majority in this country will eventually wake up and the rich free ride will end. Its coming. There are simply more of us than there are them and people are starting to understand the need to vote for their wallet, not their ideals.

Then we shall see who is crying the blues. A-hole

Arkie
05-28-2011, 04:32 PM
Coburn’s report makes clear that the agency itself cracked down on some of the problems, including firing the organizer of the South Pole Jell-O wrestling event.

In a letter after his dismissal, the dismissed employee complained of “fun nazis” who had clamped down on him. ......LOL

That's only part of the reason he was fired. He also had 16,500 condoms delivered to 150-200 people before the "long dark winter began."

http://www.westword.com/2009-02-12/news/jell-o-wrestling-is-a-firing-offense-at-the-south-pole/

Dukes
05-28-2011, 09:02 PM
The majority in this country will eventually wake up and the rich free ride will end. Its coming. There are simply more of us than there are them and people are starting to understand the need to vote for their wallet, not their ideals.

Then we shall see who is crying the blues. A-hole

Are you ****ing serious with this? That's what's gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Who said this? "When the populace realizes they can vote themselves money it will bode the end of the republic."

Archer81
05-28-2011, 09:10 PM
Dude,

Until people like you wake up and realize that the Bush tax cuts were the first thing protected by the repubs and guess what the second thing was ? oil company subsidies

The republicans know what the rich and large companies bankrolling their campaigns had for lunch. When they do the right thing and get ****in rid of Bush tax cuts and welfare for big oil we'll talk about other things, until then back off medicare and social security.

Gawdamn repubs ****in with unions, wanting to cut all social programs and protecting their rich buddies...........anyone defending these pieces of chit is beyong delusional, has no common sense and OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT TAUGHT THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST PLAIN RIGHT AND WRONG !!!!!!


Oddly alot of Obama's campaign money came from corporations.

Anywhoo...

Second bolded is interesting as well. Even FDR opposed public sector unions. Probably because he knew how corrupt and inefficient they are.

I have a question for you. Why do you care if rich people keep their money? Does it offend you that they have more? If so maybe you need to reevaluate what is important to you.

:Broncos:

anon
05-28-2011, 10:05 PM
I have a question for you. Why do you care if rich people keep their money? Does it offend you that they have more? If so maybe you need to reevaluate what is important to you.


I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll take a turn on the soapbox: for me, it isn't about rich people keeping their money, but we all pay into the same pot of money that the government has to spend, so how much money "rich people" get to keep directly affects me (though in truth, I am probably in one of the higher tax brackets). Like it or not, taxes are going to have to go up at some point. The question is whether they will be raised equally for all income levels or will the rich, as they traditionally have, continue to support a heavier burden.

As for the issue of entitlements, we have to be honest with ourselves about the kind of society we want to be. All of the First World countries will be and have been experiencing the same kind of questions in regards to gov't entitlements. Sure, we can run a purely Darwinian society straight out of a science fiction film and "remove from circulation" the homeless, unemployed, retired old folk who can't pay their own way, and any one else who can't contribute to the economy: that would surely cut down on the need for gov't entitlements and cost, but is that what we want to do? And if the answer is no, what exactly is the solution? This tension will always exist and will only become stronger as people live longer and the world population increases. The reality is that not everyone can have the same rap video lifestyle and/or even just the two SUVs and a nice house in the suburbs lifestyle -- the earth simply will not support it.

The right would have you believe that the "have-nots" are all **** ups who are leeching off your tax dollars and/or otherwise gaming the system. Wake up call: there will always be people and entities that game the system, just to varying degrees; there will always be plain old ****-ups; there will always be old folks who simply could not save enough money to be self-sufficient during their retirement. We cannot magically make these people disappear.

As we tend to have different perceptions on the actual criminality of different forms of white collar crime, people love to sensationalize the welfare mom who had an extra child to collect more money from the gov't while turning a blind eye to how corporations are gaming a different system to the tune of billions of dollars; or that we have mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan running around with bags of millions in US cash with very lax accountability. A similar thing is happening in this thread about science funding and a great example of Republican handwaving. As others have pointed out, it is a drop in the bucket compared to defense, deficit, and Medicare/Social Security. And, at a time when we fear giving up our one remaining edge (technology), why are we attacking research funding? Because some idiot administrator decided to add a little pork for his PhD buddies in Antarctica? If we really wanted to cherrypick examples of gov't misappropriation, I'm sure we can find much more egregious things to highlight.

The PBS news program Frontline did a great piece on single payer health systems in other countries: the general gist is that it works very well; there can be longer waits for some procedures; but cost management is a continual struggle. But as a whole, the system works.

I'm probably a bit of an idealist and a dreamer, but I personally think some sort of gov't program akin to the CCC would be great. It would have tangible benefits for the nation and at least folks who claim to be looking for work would have one less excuse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/ccc/

Requiem
05-28-2011, 10:14 PM
Fedaykin for the touchdown!

Archer81
05-29-2011, 01:02 AM
/url


Nice post. I cut it down to save space.


I believe government is more efficient when it governs least. Enacting entitlement after entitlement destroys this maxim.

A single payer system might be honey and icecream, but it does not work without flaws anywhere on earth. If I am going to have government sponsored healthcare I better have no wait, unlimited choice of doctors and treatments and no interference from bureaucrats. The idea that treatments change depending on economic viability of the patient bothers me immensely.

Just my .02 on that.

:Broncos:

anon
05-29-2011, 02:04 AM
Nice post. I cut it down to save space.


I believe government is more efficient when it governs least. Enacting entitlement after entitlement destroys this maxim.

A single payer system might be honey and icecream, but it does not work without flaws anywhere on earth. If I am going to have government sponsored healthcare I better have no wait, unlimited choice of doctors and treatments and no interference from bureaucrats. The idea that treatments change depending on economic viability of the patient bothers me immensely.

Just my .02 on that.

:Broncos:

Nothing is perfect and even with privatized healthcare in the US, we do not have the things you want. What you are basically saying is that you'll accept a single payer system if it is perfect, which is really impossible. There will be compromises.

Healthcare in the US is already run by bureaucrats, just of the corporate variety; and we face all of the problems you outline. And to be honest, I don't understand why some folks fear big government yet are happy to trust big business to self-regulate -- and I make a distinction btw. big business vs. small business here. Corporations are just as heartless/faceless as a government bureaucracy.

The issue with healthcare as a for-profit industry is that it is, by definition, in direct conflict with the core requirement to keep costs down. Counter-intuitively or not, the "competition" of the marketplace has really failed to produce an efficient healthcare system.

Bottom line is that nationalized healthcare has been proven to work, warts and all -- my parents hold dual citizenship and enjoy the benefits and it gives me some piece of mind that they will have other options for healthcare if Medicare fails them. As for the problems you hear about, I would apply the 80/20 rule and take the benefits over horror stories.

Also, it would seem to me that voters would have more power over how the healthcare system is run if it were run by the government. More encouragingly, one thing that most governments are good/efficient at is collecting money and a big part of running a healthcare system would be collecting/distributing payments.

HILife
05-29-2011, 05:42 AM
Its unnecessary.

The science grant game should be looked at in depth. There are alot of fields, climate change being one of them, that are near quackery.

Right, because who needs a clean, livable Earth.

Archer81
05-29-2011, 10:55 AM
Healthcare in the US is already run by bureaucrats, just of the corporate variety; and we face all of the problems you outline. And to be honest, I don't understand why some folks fear big government yet are happy to trust big business to self-regulate -- and I make a distinction btw. big business vs. small business here. Corporations are just as heartless/faceless as a government bureaucracy.


I often wonder why people are in favor of big government but hate "big" corporations. They are nearly identical in abuse of power.


:Broncos:

broncocalijohn
05-29-2011, 12:33 PM
When anyone states that "this project is such a tiny fraction of a % of the debt" worries me. It isthese programs that are not only addingup to a bigger fraction for not only that year but allocated money for years to come. I cringe when politicianss say, "It is only a few dollars more peryear", but they don't bother to tell you that the politician uses that same line a few times a year for the last 20 years. It adds up and regardless of cost, spending good money on bad projects should not be tolerated!

gyldenlove
05-29-2011, 12:45 PM
I often wonder why people are in favor of big government but hate "big" corporations. They are nearly identical in abuse of power.


:Broncos:

For 2 reasons:

A) you can replace a government, you get a shot at doing so every 4 years in fact, you try replacing a company like wal-mart or microsoft.

B) a government works for the people in the country it is in, a corporation works for the share holders who in many cases do not live in the country the corporation operates in, so the profit the company makes leaves the country and the corners the company cuts are to the detriment of people who mean nothing to the shareholders.

Requiem
05-29-2011, 12:49 PM
When anyone states that "this project is such a tiny fraction of a % of the debt" worries me. It isthese programs that are not only addingup to a bigger fraction for not only that year but allocated money for years to come. I cringe when politicianss say, "It is only a few dollars more peryear", but they don't bother to tell you that the politician uses that same line a few times a year for the last 20 years. It adds up and regardless of cost, spending good money on bad projects should not be tolerated!

It shouldn't worry you. It is good research. P.S., you should research federal budget allocation while you are at it. ;)

anon
05-29-2011, 01:00 PM
I often wonder why people are in favor of big government but hate "big" corporations. They are nearly identical in abuse of power.


:Broncos:

Yes and no.

At least the government's charter is to act for the common good and we as the people technically have the power to replace/influence the government, though the system has been severely crippled by the influx of money from, you guessed it, big business.

The charter of a big corporation is to make money for its sharedholders and you as the voter have no power over how a corporation does business. A corporation has no social conscience. "Vote with your wallet" cannot be applied to some of the industries that are the biggest abusers of power: oil companies, insurance companies, financial companies, pharmaceuticals.

And I don't hate big corporations. I just think that they are too powerful, have too much influence over government, and by definition, do not act in the common interest or at least, find it very difficult to consistently act in the common interest, simply because it is not what a corporation was designed to do.

Arkie
05-29-2011, 05:58 PM
Big business and big government grew big together. It's not so easy to replace our plutocratic government. If a third party candidate actually got elected, they would probably get assassinated.

Archer81
05-29-2011, 06:13 PM
For 2 reasons:

A) 1. you can replace a government, you get a shot at doing so every 4 years in fact, you try replacing a company like wal-mart or microsoft.

2. B) a government works for the people in the country it is in, a corporation works for the share holders who in many cases do not live in the country the corporation operates in, so the profit the company makes leaves the country and the corners the company cuts are to the detriment of people who mean nothing to the shareholders.

1. And get the same results.

2. Are you suggesting senators and congressmen do not enrich themselves at taxpayer's expense?

:Broncos:

anon
05-30-2011, 10:26 AM
2. Are you suggesting senators and congressmen do not enrich themselves at taxpayer's expense?
:Broncos:

This is true but when government officials do it, it is either illegal and/or frowned upon (technically legal but can be critiqued as unethical).

When a corporation's executives and its lobbyists enrich the corporation at the expense of taxpayers, they are just doing their jobs: pushing the laws to the limit in order to maximize profit and/or pushing through new laws that create a favorable business climate.

The fundamental difference is that government and corporations have different mandates. The answer is to reform the relationship btw. big business and the government, not further deregulation, which has been proven over time not to work.

Note that regulation of big business and campaign finance reform has nothing to do with increasing entitlement programs.

DemonEagles
05-30-2011, 11:09 AM
Shrimp on a treadmill, the Dexter Mcluster story

Swedish Extrovert
05-30-2011, 11:15 AM
Cool. To which house of Congress have you been elected?

I'll run if you'll vote for me.

gyldenlove
05-30-2011, 11:21 AM
1. And get the same results.

2. Are you suggesting senators and congressmen do not enrich themselves at taxpayer's expense?

:Broncos:

1. Then you are not voting the right way, there is a good system in place to elect honest politicians, if the voters are too stupid to do so they can not be saved.

2. If they do, you can kick them out, there are many methods available including recalls to eliminate politicians who abuse the system.

There are clearcut and legally binding ways of getting rid of bad politicians, not to mention that every single natural born American is eligible to run for any office of power. If the electorate is too ignorant to elect good politicians then you may need to look into the possibility of moving elsewhere.

Arkie
05-30-2011, 02:03 PM
Our only choices in the last 1/4 century out of 300 million people were McCain/Palin, Obama/Biden, Bush/Cheney, Kerry/Edwards, Gore/Lieberman, Dole/Kemp, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Quayle, Dukakis/Bentson :crazy:/ugh!~

Try to rank them from the most honest to the least honest.

Requiem
05-31-2011, 03:48 AM
Jesus that list is pathetic.

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 05:46 AM
Just remember these facts: Europeans pay half what we pay for healthcare. Everybody is covered. They get much better results in every category (pregnancy, longevity, etc.) Nobody is bankrupted by medical bills (medical bills cause over 60% of American bankruptcies).

We pay an exorbitant ransom for health insurance we don't need to support an industry we don't want, and that every year drives up the costs so they can get richer by denying us care. Not only that, few Americans have enough coverage. The average American has no idea that all that money he's paying for healthcare is only going to partially cover his costs if some medical disaster happens to him - say, a stroke. I watch fully insured Americans go bankrupt every week.

Is there anything stupider than somebody who is getting ****ed and not only doesn't even know it, but fights for the rights of the industry that's putting it to him? Ha!

Pony Boy
05-31-2011, 07:07 AM
Just remember these facts: Europeans pay half what we pay for healthcare. Everybody is covered. They get much better results in every category (pregnancy, longevity, etc.) Nobody is bankrupted by medical bills (medical bills cause over 60% of American bankruptcies).

We pay an exorbitant ransom for health insurance we don't need to support an industry we don't want, and that every year drives up the costs so they can get richer by denying us care. Not only that, few Americans have enough coverage. The average American has no idea that all that money he's paying for healthcare is only going to partially cover his costs if some medical disaster happens to him - say, a stroke. I watch fully insured Americans go bankrupt every week.

Is there anything stupider than somebody who is getting ****ed and not only doesn't even know it, but fights for the rights of the industry that's putting it to him? Ha!

I get it, let the federal government run healthcare, we could save money by putting your doctor's office and hospital next-door to the US Post Office and across the street from Fanny and Freddie. It would be a smooth well oiled machine and a model of efficiency for the whole world to see.

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 07:27 AM
I get it, let the federal government run healthcare, we could save money by putting your doctor's office and hospital next-door to the US Post Office and across the street from Fanny and Freddie. It would be a smooth well oiled machine and a model of efficiency for the whole world to see.

Reagan hatched that idea that "Government is the problem." Before that, the U.S. government built the Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, won WWII, built the greatest, largest highway system in the world and landed man on the moon. Suddenly, Reagan declares that the U.S. government is a failure and a bunch of sheep herd in behind him, mewling and baaaa-ing. The powers that propped up Reagan used him as their pitch-man (which is all he was ever good at) to weaken the powers of government so that their own greed could be unleashed. We can all look around and see where that got us.

Americans seem to remember when Lincoln called it a government "...for the people..." but they seem to have forgotten the part about a government "of" and "by the people." If you're asking me whether I would like to continue with the corporatist owned government that Reagan created or return to the government "...of the people, by the people, and for the people," I'll take Lincoln's over Reagan's any day of the week. Thank you.
:welcome:

Requiem
05-31-2011, 07:38 AM
Roh, I'm not sure if the bases were loaded or not there, but take a jog fella, you just hit a homer.

Pony Boy
05-31-2011, 07:40 AM
Reagan hatched that idea that "Government is the problem." Before that, the U.S. government built the Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, won WWII, built the greatest, largest highway system in the world and landed man on the moon. Suddenly, Reagan declares that the U.S. government is a failure and a bunch of sheep herd in behind him, mewling and baaaa-ing. The powers that propped up Reagan used him as their pitch-man (which is all he was ever good at) to weaken the powers of government so that their own greed could be unleashed. We can all look around and see where that got us.

Americans seem to remember when Lincoln called it a government "...for the people..." but they seem to have forgotten the part about a government "of" and "by the people." If you're asking me whether I would like to continue with the corporatist owned government that Reagan created or return to the government "...of the people, by the people, and for the people," I'll take Lincoln's over Reagan's any day of the week. Thank you.
:welcome:

The US Government has an important and legitimate role to play in a growing economy. It should enforce contracts, create a level playing field for all businesses, and steadfastly promote the rule of law, but that's as far as it should go, U.S. entrepreneurs can take it from there.

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 07:59 AM
The US Government has an important and legitimate role to play in a growing economy. It should enforce contracts, create a level playing field for all businesses, and steadfastly promote the rule of law, but that's as far as it should go, U.S. entrepreneurs can take it from there.

Really? You should study up on what created the great economic booms in modern America. It was scientific and medical research conducted by the U.S. government (like the space program, for instance). It was massive investments in infrastructure and education by the U.S. government. Hell, the U.S. government invented the internet! Corporations never make investments without a guarantee of return. Businessmen always come along after the fact and parasite. It's cheaper and easier, not to mention, more profitable.

You want to know what happens to a state thats stops investing in infrastructure, education and research in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy? It goes down the toilet. Businessmen, by their nature, care about nothing but their short term interests. Profit first, everything else, secondary. That's how business works. Now that disease of short-termitis has infected our whole country. We are devising entire political philosophies to support the disease. It's like the body snatchers. Convince people that something that is destroying them is actually good for them.

Putting the pirates in charge is always a mistake.

Pony Boy
05-31-2011, 08:14 AM
Really? You should study up on what created the great economic booms in modern America. It was scientific and medical research conducted by the U.S. government (like the space program, for instance). It was massive investments in infrastructure and education by the U.S. government. Hell, the U.S. government invented the internet! Corporations never make investments without a guarantee of return. Businessmen always come along after the fact and parasite. It's cheaper and easier, not to mention, more profitable.

You want to know what happens to a state thats stops investing in infrastructure, education and research in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy? It goes down the toilet. Businessmen, by their nature, care about nothing but their short term interests. Profit first, everything else, secondary. That's how business works. Now that disease of short-termitis has infected our whole country. We are devising entire political philosophies to support the disease. It's like the body snatchers. Convince people that something that is destroying them is actually good for them.

Putting the pirates in charge is always a mistake.

I didn't say that a state should stop investing in infrastructure, it's very important but it should preformed by private contractors and the government’s role is to provide and enforce contracts and create a level playing field. Education is a different subject, we were talking about the economy.

Tombstone RJ
05-31-2011, 10:16 AM
Shrimp on a treadmill, the Dexter Mcluster story

LOL

Tombstone RJ
05-31-2011, 10:19 AM
Just remember these facts: Europeans pay half what we pay for healthcare. Everybody is covered. They get much better results in every category (pregnancy, longevity, etc.) Nobody is bankrupted by medical bills (medical bills cause over 60% of American bankruptcies).

We pay an exorbitant ransom for health insurance we don't need to support an industry we don't want, and that every year drives up the costs so they can get richer by denying us care. Not only that, few Americans have enough coverage. The average American has no idea that all that money he's paying for healthcare is only going to partially cover his costs if some medical disaster happens to him - say, a stroke. I watch fully insured Americans go bankrupt every week.

Is there anything stupider than somebody who is getting ****ed and not only doesn't even know it, but fights for the rights of the industry that's putting it to him? Ha!

What we have to do (here in the USA) is bring down the price of health care. Having the fed gov. control it will not bring down the cost and will increase waste and over billing.

There's some very simple ways to bring down the cost of health insurance and health care, however, the fed gov doesn't want to do these things and the question we all need to be asking is--WHY!!

alkemical
05-31-2011, 10:23 AM
Nice post. I cut it down to save space.


I believe government is more efficient when it governs least. Enacting entitlement after entitlement destroys this maxim.

A single payer system might be honey and icecream, but it does not work without flaws anywhere on earth. If I am going to have government sponsored healthcare I better have no wait, unlimited choice of doctors and treatments and no interference from bureaucrats. The idea that treatments change depending on economic viability of the patient bothers me immensely.

Just my .02 on that.

:Broncos:



Treatments currently change depending on the economic viability of patients now.

alkemical
05-31-2011, 10:24 AM
What we have to do (here in the USA) is bring down the price of health care. Having the fed gov. control it will not bring down the cost and will increase waste and over billing.

There's some very simple ways to bring down the cost of health insurance and health care, however, the fed gov doesn't want to do these things and the question we all need to be asking is--WHY!!

The healthcare companies like the game that is currently going, and if it's a "state run" program - there will only be the 2 largest providers, and they don't care since they can buy gov't.

Houshyamama
05-31-2011, 10:35 AM
Muscles develop either by Hypertrophy (increas in size of the fibers) or Hyperplasia (increase in the number of fibers), and are formed from myoblasts during embryonic development. The nervous system develops from the ectoderm. While I don't mind the socratic nature of this conversation, I am begining to wonder when the full nature of the debate you are proposing is going to facilitate, if at all.

What happened to this conversation???

I was curious to hear epicSocialism4tw's answer.

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 10:51 AM
What happened to this conversation???

I was curious to hear epicSocialism4tw's answer.

He ran away. ;D

epicSocialism4tw
05-31-2011, 10:59 AM
What happened to this conversation???

I was curious to hear epicSocialism4tw's answer.

I waited to see if the guy knew what I was talking about or if he was just googling information.

Apparently he's just googling. He's just stating facts that don't really have much do do with the issue I brought up, which is common knowledge in the field.

Inkana7
05-31-2011, 11:01 AM
What happened to this conversation???

I was curious to hear epicSocialism4tw's answer.

He was busy ignoring science.

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 11:18 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-truth-about-the-ameri_b_869033.html

Tombstone RJ
05-31-2011, 11:29 AM
The healthcare companies like the game that is currently going, and if it's a "state run" program - there will only be the 2 largest providers, and they don't care since they can buy gov't.

I guess I don't understand what you are saying. The healthcare industry wrote the legislation for Obamacare, and they are the largest benefactors financially from Obamacare. They have already bought off the fed. gov.

My point is that the fed gov can do some simple things to bring down the cost of health care. The biggest thing they can do is tort reform. Doctors and hospitals pay an exorbitant amount of money to protect themselves from being sued. Some simple tort reform legislation can protect health care providers from this crap.

But is the fed gov going to do any TORT REFORM???? HELL NO!!!

And why????---because the lawyer lobby in DC has paid off all the fuggen politicians and DC IS RUN BY LAWYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

So fug Washington DC, fug all the lawyers and fug the health insurance companies.

This is very simple stuff the fed gov. could be doing but is Not!

WHY???

alkemical
05-31-2011, 11:44 AM
I guess I don't understand what you are saying. The healthcare industry wrote the legislation for Obamacare, and they are the largest benefactors financially from Obamacare. They have already bought off the fed. gov.

My point is that the fed gov can do some simple things to bring down the cost of health care. The biggest thing they can do is tort reform. Doctors and hospitals pay an exorbitant amount of money to protect themselves from being sued. Some simple tort reform legislation can protect health care providers from this crap.

But is the fed gov going to do any TORT REFORM???? HELL NO!!!

And why????---because the lawyer lobby in DC has paid off all the fuggen politicians and DC IS RUN BY LAWYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

So fug Washington DC, fug all the lawyers and fug the health insurance companies.

This is very simple stuff the fed gov. could be doing but is Not!

WHY???

it's not just tort reform that needs done either. i'm also wary to cap damages done for malpractice as a whole. Stupid lawsuits, yeah - but people that had something botched and have to deal with some major pain or handicap, i think there should be some merit to help those people long term.

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 11:46 AM
August 31, 2009, 3:45 pm
Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?
By ANNE UNDERWOOD
Medical tort reform is moving to the fore of the health care debate. On Sunday in The New York Times, former Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey, argued that one way to gain support of both Democrats and Republicans might be to combine universal coverage with tort reform. Mr. Bradley also suggested that medical courts with special judges could be established, similar to bankruptcy or admiralty courts.

On “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, seemed to agree that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving up health care costs and should be limited in some way. “We’ve got to find some way of getting rid of the frivolous cases, and most of them are,” Mr. Hatch said. “And that’s doable, most definitely,” Mr. Kerry replied.

But some academics who study the system are less certain. One critic is Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” who believes that making the legal system less receptive to medical malpractice lawsuits will not significantly affect the costs of medical care. He spoke with the freelance writer Anne Underwood.

Q.A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?

A.Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.

Q.Why not?

A.As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.

Q.But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.

A.That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

Tombstone RJ
05-31-2011, 11:59 AM
August 31, 2009, 3:45 pm
Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?
By ANNE UNDERWOOD
Medical tort reform is moving to the fore of the health care debate. On Sunday in The New York Times, former Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey, argued that one way to gain support of both Democrats and Republicans might be to combine universal coverage with tort reform. Mr. Bradley also suggested that medical courts with special judges could be established, similar to bankruptcy or admiralty courts.

On “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, seemed to agree that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving up health care costs and should be limited in some way. “We’ve got to find some way of getting rid of the frivolous cases, and most of them are,” Mr. Hatch said. “And that’s doable, most definitely,” Mr. Kerry replied.

But some academics who study the system are less certain. One critic is Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” who believes that making the legal system less receptive to medical malpractice lawsuits will not significantly affect the costs of medical care. He spoke with the freelance writer Anne Underwood.

Q.A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?

A.Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.

Q.Why not?

A.As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.

Q.But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.

A.That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

You missed the point: Doctors and Hospitals have to buy very costly insurance to protect against being sued. This drives up their cost to operate their practices and they pass on the cost to the consumer. This has nothing to do with the actual cost of litigation and lawyer fees.

Funny how this article misses that point. But I'm sure this article has an agenda too....

gyldenlove
05-31-2011, 12:54 PM
You missed the point: Doctors and Hospitals have to buy very costly insurance to protect against being sued. This drives up their cost to operate their practices and they pass on the cost to the consumer. This has nothing to do with the actual cost of litigation and lawyer fees.

Funny how this article misses that point. But I'm sure this article has an agenda too....

So you are saying that if you can somehow fix those 10-15% of the expenses related to legal expenses the system is fine?

Swedish Extrovert
05-31-2011, 12:55 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-truth-about-the-ameri_b_869033.html

Huffington Post = Lefty Drudge Report... or Lefty Fox News, only worse.

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 12:57 PM
Huffington Post = Lefty Drudge Report... or Lefty Fox News, only worse.

Yeah. What does Robert Reich know about anything? :rofl:

Robert Bernard Reich (pronounced /ˈraɪʃ/;[1] born June 24, 1946) is an American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator. He served in three national administrations, including that of Presidents Ford, Carter, and as Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, from 1993 to 1997.

Reich is currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University's School of Government and professor of "Social and Economic Policy" at Brandeis University. He has also been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect (also chairman and founding editor,) Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. (wiki)

Swedish Extrovert
05-31-2011, 12:58 PM
Just remember these facts: Europeans pay half what we pay for healthcare. Everybody is covered. They get much better results in every category (pregnancy, longevity, etc.) Nobody is bankrupted by medical bills (medical bills cause over 60% of American bankruptcies).

We pay an exorbitant ransom for health insurance we don't need to support an industry we don't want, and that every year drives up the costs so they can get richer by denying us care. Not only that, few Americans have enough coverage. The average American has no idea that all that money he's paying for healthcare is only going to partially cover his costs if some medical disaster happens to him - say, a stroke. I watch fully insured Americans go bankrupt every week.

Is there anything stupider than somebody who is getting ****ed and not only doesn't even know it, but fights for the rights of the industry that's putting it to him? Ha!

Read these two essays before you hark Europe up so much:

Power and Weakness, Robert Kagan - http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/kagan.htm

Future of American Power, Fareed Zakaria -
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_future_of_american_power.html

Swedish Extrovert
05-31-2011, 12:59 PM
Yeah. What does Robert Reich know about anything? :rofl:

Robert Bernard Reich (pronounced /ˈraɪʃ/;[1] born June 24, 1946) is an American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator. He served in three national administrations, including that of Presidents Ford, Carter, and as Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, from 1993 to 1997.

Reich is currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University's School of Government and professor of "Social and Economic Policy" at Brandeis University. He has also been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect (also chairman and founding editor,) Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. (wiki)

Yeah, what do Fareed Zakaria and Robert Kagan know about anything? They're only mere Harvard Professors.

Edit - so was Bill Kristol, and I think he's a righty idiot.

Tombstone RJ
05-31-2011, 01:07 PM
So you are saying that if you can somehow fix those 10-15% of the expenses related to legal expenses the system is fine?

I'm saying it's one way to lower the cost of health care, couple that with breaking the health insurance cartel and allowing health insurance companies to provide services across state lines, along with allowing a cooperative health insurance program for small businesses and the costs would come down substantially while keeping the benefits of the current system which allows for fantastic health care by the best doctors and hospitals in the world.

but that's just my solution, what the hell do I know, right?

Rohirrim
05-31-2011, 01:07 PM
Read these two essays before you hark Europe up so much:

Power and Weakness, Robert Kagan - http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/kagan.htm

Future of American Power, Fareed Zakaria -
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_future_of_american_power.html

Since neither of these articles have anything to do with health care, but more with power geopolitics, I don't see the point.

Swedish Extrovert
05-31-2011, 01:13 PM
Since neither of these articles have anything to do with health care, but more with power geopolitics, I don't see the point.

America's position in geopolitics dictates it's position in health care... and also R&D funding.

Swedish Extrovert
05-31-2011, 01:16 PM
Doctors in the US make twice that of doctors in any other developed country... and if you'd have read the Zakaria article, you'd see that the US dominates the world in biotech R&D - to the tune of 76 percent.

It's a big reason why our health care system is so expensive... but we also reap the benefits of being the first to develop new technologies and drugs, which pumps billions into out economy.

I lived in both the Netherlands and Sweden... for me, being on Aetna, the health care system in the US is better.

Houshyamama
05-31-2011, 01:28 PM
I waited to see if the guy knew what I was talking about or if he was just googling information.

Apparently he's just googling. He's just stating facts that don't really have much do do with the issue I brought up, which is common knowledge in the field.

So, what IS the deal with muscle and nervous tissue? You're in this field then?

DivineLegion
05-31-2011, 09:03 PM
I waited to see if the guy knew what I was talking about or if he was just googling information.

Apparently he's just googling. He's just stating facts that don't really have much do do with the issue I brought up, which is common knowledge in the field.

Ad Hominem

I would love to continue where we left off, but you never replied when I responded. Until you ask a specific question, the best I can give you is a general answer. If you would kindly get to the point of the proceeding argument we could take this somewhere and appease our captive audience.

If you would like my credentials good sir, I will lay em' out for ya'. I'm a student working on my BA in Biochemistry, and I work 45 hours a week at a Diagnostic laboratory as a Medical Technologist.

epicSocialism4tw
05-31-2011, 09:38 PM
Ad Hominem

I would love to continue where we left off, but you never replied when I responded. Until you ask a specific question, the best I can give you is a general answer. If you would kindly get to the point of the proceeding argument we could take this somewhere and appease our captive audience.

If you would like my credentials good sir, I will lay em' out for ya'. I'm a student working on my BA in Biochemistry, and I work 45 hours a week at a Diagnostic laboratory as a Medical Technologist.


Good for you. Study hard and make A's. Especially in your chemistry and math courses.

misturanderson
05-31-2011, 11:02 PM
Good for you. Study hard and make A's. Especially in your chemistry and math courses.

You are, quite frankly, a piece of ****. But everybody already knew that.

epicSocialism4tw
06-01-2011, 01:07 AM
You are, quite frankly, a piece of ****. But everybody already knew that.

Thanks, brosef! ^5

Arkie
06-01-2011, 10:56 AM
So you are saying that if you can somehow fix those 10-15% of the expenses related to legal expenses the system is fine?

The system is far from fine. The ObamaCare Madness Bracket presents only the top 64 things wrong with ObamaCare, but tort reform did make the final four.

http://realmarchmadness.org/results.php
http://realmarchmadness.org/ObamacareMadnessBracket.gif

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-01-2011, 11:03 AM
Too bad Republicans have been backing an individual mandate for decades now... right up until that Obama guy wanted it. Then it became the devil.

Silly little hypocrites.