>> ^Kofi:

What does he mean by "back to the private sector"? I thought he was against picking winners and losers.
He doesn't seem to understand the idea of government as providing that which the private sector cannot provide because it necessarily has to run at a loss, you know, like emergency services etc. If there's a dollar to be made you can be sure the private sector is already there unless legislation prohibits it.

I think the idea is that you buy insurance against natural disaster.


Of course if you have any pre-existing conditions, say your house is built near a fault line, next to the sea or in hurricane alley then your premiums are probably going to be extortionate.

To be fair. He didn't quite say that federal disaster relief should be privatised, just that it should be moved to the state level - and then you could argue he went off on a tangent about how you should privatise as much as possible and that large federal spending was "immoral". I think whats interesting is what he considers to be a waste of federal money, and what isn't - say a bloated defence budget. Maybe if you build enough tanks you can shoot the next Katrina to pieces?

What does he mean by "back to the private sector"? I thought he was against picking winners and losers.

He doesn't seem to understand the idea of government as providing that which the private sector cannot provide because it necessarily has to run at a loss, you know, like emergency services etc. If there's a dollar to be made you can be sure the private sector is already there unless legislation prohibits it.

>> ^Fletch:

You say "bullshit", and then give an example that demonstrates exactly the opposite.

That's because they are two separate issues. One is about red light cameras and speed cameras in urban areas, and the other is road traffic policing on open roads.

>> ^Fletch:

No camera at the dangerous corner, but cameras where people are likely to exceed the speed limit (albeit safely)? Gee, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because they raise more revenue putting cameras where there is little danger, but high return via fines. If speed cameras were truly a deterrent, and they chose not to put a camera at the known dangerous corner, then they either don't believe they are a deterrent and just place the cameras for maximum revenue, or they don't give a shit about public safety and, again, place the cameras for maximum revenue.

Possible. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the revenue raised is a significant sum from a government pov. More likely, it's that the cops are under pressure to be seen to be enforcing speed limits and so do so in a place that will allow them to say "look how many people we caught".

>> ^Fletch:

I average about one speeding ticket every two years or so, and it hasn't deterred me in any way. I just think of the fine, spread out over 24 months, as the price I pay to drive however the hell I want.

Again, in any sane system, you would have your licence suspended for repeated infringement.

>> ^Fletch:

Nothing the government does, such as approving red light cameras, comes without cost/benefit considerations, and there is no benefit ($) to "fewer people running red lights".

Apart from less crashes, which couldn't possibly lead to other benefits to governments like less use of emergency services? Plus a whole bunch of knock-on effects that stem from this. Not to mention all the intangibles such as voter popularity declining in the face of an increasing road toll.

>> ^seltar:

Hire a flashmob / lookalikes to dress like him and show up outside, let Assange blend in with them, and then disperse in all directions!


That could work. The thing about how that could work as well would be as soon as he's away from the place of focus, he has a much greater chance of getting away. The problem would be of course if the police are tipped off and surround and block off the streets, detaining EVERYONE in the process. So you'd have to do this during maybe a high traffic hour...maybe with a lot of people who aren't afraid of giving the cops are hard time because they might have to charge them or something.

It could work, but there's a significant risk involved of bodily injury, so I don't know. The other thing would be sensory overload which is possibly a dangerous alternative. Set up a call center and start calling emergency services, bombarding them until it draws police away or at least harms communication and confuses them. The problem with that is obviously if there's a real emergency during that time, that person could be in real trouble.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:
@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.



well, one really lacking area is in somatic complaints, which make up, i believe, the close to the majority of complaints at hospitals. things like - bad back, bad shoulder...etc. these are all complaints that often have chronic structural issues, for which western medicine is ill-equipped to deal. they often just medicate those issues until they turn into procedural issues, which is often a very incomplete treatment.
instead structural issues are left to mostly the chiro's to muck about with, and while they get some of the theory right, their quick-fix practices are also often based on a profit motive, and rather incomplete.

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:

@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.

Hmph...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street_n_987439.html
http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/09/wall-st-protest-day-three-a-call-for-the-deprivatization-of-everything/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street_n_987439.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/labor_unions_and_leftist_group.html

The more I see about these yahoos, the less sympathy I feel. The protestors were clogging up the streets and sidewalks and bringing the area to a standstill. People couldn't drive or get to work. They were creating a disturbance, disrupting citizens, and otherwise being a bunch of jerks. That sort of mess can be dangerous in a big city. It stops ambulances. It stops fire trucks. It stops emergency services. It causes accidents.

So the police got called in to clear a way so normal traffic could keep going. The protestors refused to disperse or cooperate. Therefore in order to accomplish their jobs, the police had to start hauling people away and using crowd control. That means they break out the pepper spray, nightsticks, nets, plastic cuffs, and start arresting people. Duh.

So when that happens the protestors start whining they are 'peaceful'? And the police are 'violent'? Nope. Doesn't wash. If you'd wanted a peaceful solution then you'd have dispersed when the police asked - or better yet you wouldn't have created a problem to start with. But that didn't happen, so the cops had to force it.

You don't get to cry foul when that happens. When you illegally block traffic and create a danger to others then the cops have every right to force you to clear out - and they have every right to use force if you are not cooperative. MLK and Ghandi accomplished their goals with peaceful protests against real oppression. These Wall Street yahoos are just a bunch of leftist cretins who are trying to stir up trouble. I think this opinion about sums it up...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/26/life-on-occupied-wall-street/

"It’s become impossible to tell where a deluded leftism stops and a respectable liberalism starts. For all the liberal complaining about conservative extremism becoming the norm, today’s liberal media culture earns its daily bread by flattering (or employing) everyone from Al Sharpton to Michael Moore to 9/11 Truthers like rapper Mos Def. And so liberalism continues its steady transformation into a self-righteous, incoherent, solution-free blur. Take a long, hard look at the fur-capped, begoggled, and topless misfits on Wall Street. They’re funhouse mirror images of our more respected liberal elites."

> Emergency services on the scene 27 seconds
> after the first collision!

watch again

That has to be a world record response time. Emergency services on the scene 27 seconds after the first collision!

The point he was arguing against was an argument based on theoretical principles and rights not law. His reply for that matter was an equally exaggerated notion of that principle, the idea that public provision of health care is equivalent to slavery when this is far from the truth. Publicly funded or subsidized health implies nothing of the sort, it would merely imply that some institutions would willingly enter into a contract to provide a service payed for by tax dollars for the provision of a service. Nobody would ever force you to work as a doctor or work in a medical institution a party to this.

He then went on to unironically discuss the emergency service provision. Yes that is law but by the same token as he is implying publicly paid for or subsidized health care is slavery, he should apply the same principles here. If he really believes this law is equivalent to slavery then pray tell me what he is doing waxing lyrically about some hypothetical and not fighting against the indenturement of his constituents?
>> ^imstellar28:

RedSky, do you draw any distinction between what a person should do, and what a person is legally obligated to do?
>> ^RedSky:
How is the hypocrisy not immediately evident?
In the same speech he refers to mandatory health care as slavery and yet seems to have no qualms with either the Hippocratic oath as a principle and emergency room health care as a principle which implies the same thing.

Were i think Ron Paul's argument on this subject & many other stances that he supports all fall apart is on the premise that A) People always act in their best interest. B) If you have the right to kill yourself because 'Its your freedom to do so' due to opposing government or state protection, but should you require assistance for protection of your life should it be denied? & if so, would it be seen as the states emergency services inept ability to act to save you or a triumph of personal freedom?.

Im shocked they don't address the over concentration of coffee shops. I mean.....it's become a running joke about how Starbucks sets up shop across the street from Starbucks.

But in general I don't agree with this. I'd like to have places that served food that was good for you, but places that are known for that typically have really disgusting food imo that costs a whole helluva lot.

Im definitely not a healthy guy, but I don't feel that denying permits to food joints would make me healthier. It'd just mean that when I wanted XYZ's food, I'd have to drive further to get it...and probably wait longer. Guess it'd depend on how far and how long you'd have to wait.

If they were concerned with health, they'd be making it more affordable, convenient and entertaining to do physical activities. Local government to me has a sports complex you can get in pretty cheap....if you live within the city limits...if you don't they charge out the nose. To the very same people who share a lot of emergency services, police services, school levies, but aren't within the city limits. Read about a health club where they set the place up to where their exercise equipment generated power the place ran off of, and they sold excess back to the power company. They have TVs and stuff, people can watch TV or watch their power generation numbers. And if they generate enough power consistently, they get in for free. I thought that was an awesome idea, you go for free......and you go more often to keep your numbers up. Plus it's just a cool idea that your sweat is going toward something beyond just the workout.

The FDA can't inspect sperm.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft


I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.

Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.

Just a quicky, but is being ill due to food poisoning really the fault of the FDA? Isn't the FDA there to stop potentially toxic and life threatening food/drink substances entering the market? I'm fairly certain that an FDA representative doesn't have to supervise every cook in every kitchen both public and private. If you need someone to supervise your cooking to ensure you don't give yourself food poisoning you really shouldn't be anywhere near a kitchen.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

News flash. Income tax doesn't pay for roads. Also, I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.
Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft


News flash. Income tax doesn't pay for roads. Also, I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.

Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.