>> ^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.

Cool. Now poor Africans can toss their hand-me-down mosquito nets and adopt these high-tech laser cones instead.

>> ^nanrod:

What? Wait a minute! Bill O'Reilly's a douche?? Stop the presses.


*stops presses* Not a problem anymore with all these high-tech presses. What now?

@marinara, friend, I'm not shouting

You are indeed against R&D. I am in high tech with many years, projects, and products under my belt. One thing I will tell you: even the best, well-thought-out ideas can fail. Risk is part and parcel of effective and innovative R&D. You want to take an example of one failure, and say we shouldn't have taken the risk. If the investors who put $1B into Solyndra shared that attitude, we'd never have a Silicon Valley.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

So, then you agree with me? This article is nothing if not a case for investing in Solyndra. Did you read the article? Hockfield makes a case that directly contradicts your main points. And she even points to examples of the US government subsidizing high tech companies.

Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

If you go to the website, there are links which give a detailed account of what has been spent. To answer your first question, if the tax cuts can help to stimulate the economy, then they would be worth the debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment.

So this one example invalidates the stimulus? Then, if I can point to a success story will you change your mind?

Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.



Why can't we both tax corporations that manufacture overseas and invest in innovative companies that manufacture here? The two are not mutually exclusive.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

>> ^longde:
quoting longde:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx
The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:
•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans


Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

I feel like we're shouting at each other. For me to win this argument, I have to convince you that the "Recovery Act" is worthless and ineffective; For you to win, you have to convince me that the "Recovery Act" actually helps the economy more than it hurts us in interest payments on the national debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment. Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.

>> ^dag:

I sure as shit do want that solar crap - and a lot of people I know do too.>> ^lantern53:
Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.
But no one wants that solar crap.



hear hear

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I sure as shit do want that solar crap - and a lot of people I know do too.>> ^lantern53:

Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.
But no one wants that solar crap.

Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.

But no one wants that solar crap.

I think your post and your sentiment is very shortsighted. The US government has a long history of subsidizing high tech. It's why we lead the world in this area. Countries like China are following the US example and gaining fast, since the US seems to be regressing. China's government's investment in private solar companies dwarfs America's, and is one factor in Solyndra's failure; Solyndra found it hard to compete against chinese products.

I could give numerous example of corporations that receive "Recovery Act" funds that have moved jobs to China this year. Since the Recovery Act is paying off those corporation that "Dey Took Ar Jawbs!" Is it wrong to conclude the recovery act is a product of the Corporate Dominated Politics?

What does this have to do with the video? If anything, Solyndra is a counterexample: an american company building a factory and research facilities in the states, opting to compete on innovation rather than cheap overseas labor. Despite its failure, we should invest in 10 more Solyndras. We need a high skill base in this country; not a population of burger flippers and day laborers.

The WPA (in teh great depression, part of the new deal) provided direct employment. They build the hoover dam, other stuff.

Contrast this to the recovery act, which spends about 80 billion on education, half that on infrastructure, and spreads the rest of the 600 billion all over.

This is a very bad comparison, and a flawed summary of what the recovery act does. For example, the 80 billion in education helped to keep teachers employed. Is that a waste?





From the recovery website:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:

•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans
•Requiring recipients of Recovery funds to report quarterly on how they are using the money. All the data is posted on Recovery.gov so the public can track the Recovery funds.
In addition to offering financial aid directly to local school districts, expanding the Child Tax Credit, and underwriting a process to computerize health records to reduce medical errors and save on health care costs, the Recovery Act is targeted at infrastructure development and enhancement. For instance, the Act plans investment in the domestic renewable energy industry and the weatherizing of 75 percent of federal buildings as well as more than one million private homes around the country.

Construction and repair of roads and bridges as well as scientific research and the expansion of broadband and wireless service are also included among the many projects that the Recovery Act will fund.

While many of Recovery Act projects are focused more immediately on jumpstarting the economy, others, especially those involving infrastructure improvements, are expected to contribute to economic growth for many years.

I wish Google would come out and say something about this. I don't want to have to change my email address on principle. In a way it's comical to think someone with the technical knowledge of these guys would "tweat" something that could cause them trouble.>> ^paul4dirt:


also, i'm glad twitter did the right thing and informed him, i'm not so sure every webservice would do the same.

Good point, hadn't thought through all the logical possibilities. Even so, there has to be a high tech, less dangerous solution. I know that police are investing heavily in those remote operated drones. You could have them overhead and just silently follow them. You are right though, once it becomes common knowledge of a police tactic to place tracers on cars, people will just abandon them.

>> ^Krupo:

You assume he'll stay with the car when you write that.

Whats the point of using a press when you can blow shit together?

And trust the yanks to come up with names like "backer" and "cladder". WTF. "Well y'all gotta birddog the backer to the cladder before it moseys down the dosado. Yeeehawww!" I want technobabble with my howto's.

>> ^dag:

Very interesting! It seems incredibly crude and yet high tech at the same time.
Surely there must be a better way to do this than wasting all those volatiles to make a sheet of bonded metal? I'm thinking of an incredibly heavy, high-speed press.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Very interesting! It seems incredibly crude and yet high tech at the same time.

Surely there must be a better way to do this than wasting all those volatiles to make a sheet of bonded metal? I'm thinking of an incredibly heavy, high-speed press.

Hi Netrunner, I tried including your comments within quote boxes, as you did in the below message, but I found text that I wrote beneath your quote boxes gets moved above them. Can I ask, do you use a special trick?

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:

1.
I think we agree on the basic principle that rationalists should have a larger influence on society, but we might have different visions of where the precise balance should be.

Perhaps that's true, but I think the other disagreement between us has to do with how much confidence we have in our ability to actually identify "rationalists" in a systematic way, and also I would contend that there's a lot of things purely rational people could easily disagree with, especially on the question of justice.

>> ^chilaxe:
2a.
Regarding guaranteeing other people necessities, I think we're playing a sleight-of-hand shell game. US society would be having little trouble providing continually advancing high tech 21st century medicine to everybody, except that we continually import poverty and poverty's repercussions, as if we didn't have enough, expanding the number of people for whom society's rationalists are now responsible.

You're being a bit too abstract here -- are you saying the US won't be able to afford Universal Healthcare because it's not doing enough to stop illegal immigration?

>> ^chilaxe:
This isn't some abstract point... it's why here in California, despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, among the highest paid teachers in the country, and a strongly liberal population, we've gone from being one of the best off states to being literally last out of the 50 states in some measures of education.

Again, you're not really making yourself clear as to what you think the cause of the issue is.

>> ^chilaxe:
2b.
Re: " very little about how much you make for a living has to do with choices you actually make yourself."
This isn't an abstract argument to me. My high school friends and I started off with mostly the same advantages. They even had some substantial advantages over my position. Since our graduation, I've watched them mostly build lives of loafish and unintellectual mediocrity focused on short-term thinking, while I built a life of unusual sacrifice and long-term thinking. The economic inequality within my high school class appears to be completely just and deserved.


Lucky you, I suppose. I started off with less advantages than my peers in school, but vastly greater advantages than my friends in the neighborhood I lived in. My observation was that my peers in school went on to make vastly more money than me, despite their loafish and unintellectual mediocrity and ethically shallow outlook, while the people in my neighborhood went on to make vastly less money than me, despite their innate industriousness, untapped intellectual depth, and generally virtuous outlook on the world.

But then, you're making an easy enough mistake. A man who'd never lived anywhere but an isolated tropical island would deny snow exists, much less is something which people would need to stockpile salt and sand for...