"Our health care system is based on the premise that health care is a commodity like VCRs or computers and that it should be distributed according to the ability to pay in the same way that consumer goods are. That's not what health care should be. Health care is a need; it's not a commodity, and it should be distributed according to need. If you're very sick, you should have a lot of it. If you're not sick, you shouldn't have a lot of it. But this should be seen as a personal, individual need, not as a commodity to be distributed like other marketplace commodities. That is a fundamental mistake in the way this country, and only this country, looks at health care. And that market ideology is what has made the health care system so dreadful, so bad at what it does."

-Dr. Marcia Angell

I disagree with this statement so much. Markets made computers, cars, new commercial rocket vehicles, beer, houses, nearly everything you consume. Not only that, but even things that are needs, like food and housing, are market driven; and yet prices go down and down. Medicine isn't inexpensive, even if it is was "free". The costs of X number of doctors being payed Y dollars a year in Z number of hospitals isn't going away just because it would hypothetically be controlled by the state. If the state were to seize medicine in the US, it would remove it from the forces that have made cars, rockets, beer, and every other commodity great. Government is the path to rot and stagnation. If you want good health, you do not want someone making decisions on it on a whim of being elected, you want him making it because he will only get paid if he does well...period.

So, the problem with medical costs rising is because it is a private industry? So, unlike nearly ever single other industry on the planet dealing with services, costs will rise with medicine because it is in private hands. That makes no since, and begs the actual answer to the question, why is does it behave that why...if in fact it is behaving that way at all.

Building a house is a very complex thing. Wiring, insulation, foundation, structure, are just a few of the numerous components that specialists install. But, house building in the USA is a completely streamlined, relatively inexpensive thing. Houses, like medical care, are at the very base of the Maslow's Hierarchy. So this isn't a case of a dear good being horded to the loss of all. IMO, the problem remains with the intractable slowness of government and an inability to act in a disinterested way. Meaning, they are ALWAYS going to write laws in a way that there is a winner and a loser, and always be so cumbersome in adapting to the rapid changing medical situation at hand. The same can't be said for normal economic activities. When I buy a house that I like for the price I wanted I feel as much a winner as all those who got paid to make it.

Not to say that the situation of insurance and hospitals even work right now. But legislating this form of care only provides incentive to this system, which may not be the best system to use. Legislation in this critical area of life will only slowdown, derail, hijack, make more costly, overlook, overshadow, real solutions. It is the same reason you don't want the government regulating (and by regulation in this since I mean overseeing the business process) how cars are made, or steal is poured, or food is eaten, or marriage is conducted.

As an aside, I really do wonder why there are no non-profit health insurance companies, like credit unions of health care. Seems like a good idea, has it been done, or does it already exist?

Edit: In reading this back to myself, it sounds overly negative. I like a lot of what this lady had to say, but I just disagree with her diagnosis of the MAIN problem. She seems smart, and non-dogmatic, and I like that; just think she is a bit off the mark.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^blankfist:
Cut funding for starters. Decrease the department sizes.
Lack of funding will not prevent bad decisions. Cheap equipment will not stop abuse of power. Anyone with a pistol can storm in and shoot you whether they're getting paid for it or not.
One solution is more widespread decentralized surveillance, run by private individuals. Doing this has gotten fairly inexpensive, and will only decrease in cost. A cop might think twice about acting inappropriately if he understands there is a reasonable chance of it ending up on YouTube.
If we're to have police then I would like them to have proper equipment and tech, but if you're concerned about accountability then citizens can provide that with their own tech... people mostly step out of line when they think they won't get caught. Starving the law enforcement system of money just reduces their ability to carry out legitimate duties.


Sure it won't keep them from storming in and shooting you with a pistol. But it will keep them from flash banging your house, bashing your door in, and then proceeded to kill everyone in the house with an M14 Rifle.

The last time I called the police it was because of a suspicious car parked near the entrance of my subsection where there are no houses. She came to my door wearing her QRT gear; tazer, chestplate, tac pants (tucked into her boots) zip tie cuffs, pepper spray, and leg holster.

Firstly when was the last time you saw a Patrol Officer wearing gear like that, and secondly who the fuck sends a QRT unit to a 10-48, 10-66, or 10-15; depending on department codes.

She was pretty hawt too, but that's beside the point.

The point is, I don't need to see officers driving around my neighborhood wearing military grade gear. That's not command presence that's intimidation, to the average citizen who doesn't know anything about escalation.

>> ^blankfist:

Cut funding for starters. Decrease the department sizes.

Lack of funding will not prevent bad decisions. Cheap equipment will not stop abuse of power. Anyone with a pistol can storm in and shoot you whether they're getting paid for it or not.

One solution is more widespread decentralized surveillance, run by private individuals. Doing this has gotten fairly inexpensive, and will only decrease in cost. A cop might think twice about acting inappropriately if he understands there is a reasonable chance of it ending up on YouTube.

If we're to have police then I would like them to have proper equipment and tech, but if you're concerned about accountability then citizens can provide that with their own tech... people mostly step out of line when they think they won't get caught. Starving the law enforcement system of money just reduces their ability to carry out legitimate duties.

>> ^kymbos:
...or inexpensive. There's no way anyone would go through that process for 'personal consumption; as he says at the start.
Full on.


The setup portrayed in this video is too much for personal consumption - much more likely an effort of that size is to supply friends and family too.

For personal consumption a grow tent, ventilation (including carbon filter barrels), hydroponics, lighting, grow medium and nurtients will typically cost between 750 and 1000 to get up and running. Grow tents are susceptible to high humidity but when due care and attention are applied to the effort then it is possible to overcome the humidity issue without worrying about smell.

Have to say that the difference in quality of personally grown plants is phenomenal. I'll never buy from anyone ever again.

It's the inexpensive ($120.00) Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. Great workhorse lens, really use it most of the time I shoot video on the 7D.

I shoot on the 7D with a preset called "superflat" that folks who love tweaking such stuff shared on the 7D channel @ Vimeo. It gives you a very low contrast slightly washed out looking video, which gives the user latitude to color grade, add effects and so on with out sacrificing picture quality.

Many of the shots I just adjusted brightness and contrast to my liking and on a few shots I adjusted color tone and added vignetting to the frame. The shots of the alligator and the hippos are the two I added vignetting to if memory serves.

Cool, thanks for sifting!

Coming from "sumone" too "ignorent" to even know how to spell "genoside" I'll take that pithy remark as the highest compliment.

>> ^westy:

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.
>> ^bcglorf:
People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.

>> ^bcglorf:

People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.

You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.

But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.

Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.

The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

^Right, I already think the system is horrible, and I wouldn't want to add silly rules to make it work for some people at the expense of others. That is already how the system is setup, it protects skilled laborers from unskilled for ever rivaling their position in the market place. It keeps the poor, under skilled person from ever threatening his position. I was lucky enough that I could read, write, and do arithmetic as I am unimpaired and took my education seriously growing up, some either weren't that lucky or missed the opportunity all together.

However, as a result of that, the majority of people make more than min was in the US, but you still have a substantial portion of people who can't read, write or do all that other basic stuff you take for granted. There is something very important to remember about min wage, it isn't the starting point of what labor is worth, it is just what some person considers a min standard of living should be in the US, and as a result, the default wage one has to charge. What it doesn't represent is what actual value of skills certain under privileged people (sometimes through no natural fault of their own) have. A person who can't read, write, or do simple math, or speak the language could only very rarely find a job that would demand them to be compensated in a level on par or surpassing min wage.

When you set a min price for labor rate you ensure that when markets fluctuate, that the people on the bottom suffer most. Instead of trying to find a low paying job, they just get none. You also ensure that the price of goods, specifically goods that would be inexpensive through cheap labor are more expensive and cause those with all ready low wages or no wages to pay more for them.

I sympathize with the goals of min wage, truly, but in my experience with the destitute, they do more harm than good.

(edit grammar...gosh I sux at writing)

The so called "free market" hates democracy every bit as much as Kim Jong Ill. Corporate totalitarianism is no better than government totalitarianism, and both have the ability to create wealth for the few and poverty for the many. Also, failed state Somalia embodies two of the principals you hold dear: Small government and low taxes. I hear real estate is very inexpensive there at the moment.

>> ^10128:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Anyway, this girl is preaching to the choir. There doesn't seem to be any corporate executive, any industrial CEO, privy to such a speech (or prepared to receive the message), who is also in a position to do the things that she calls on him or her to do. Nevertheless, the power is in the hands of the individual, the consumer, to abstain from participation, from voting with their currency, and stop encouraging malpractice with their purchases.

Why are you blaming the marketplace for poverty, are you freaking nuts? Look at any country like Burma or North Korea or Somalia, and I gaurantee you find that the problem lies in the system of government..............

Who benefits from a continued disbelief in anthropogenic climate change?

It would be more accurate to say, "Who benefits from the usage of inexpensive, efficient fuel?" The answer - of course - is everybody. Fossil fuels are the most efficient fuels we have right now. If 'low carbon' alternatives were feasible then it would be worth pursuing them. But at this point in time there is no other energy that can possibly replace fossil fuels. Except one. Nuclear.

For transportation there is no substitute. Electric cars are LESS efficient energy-wise than fossil fuel (FF) cars. It takes more fossil fuels to generate the electricity to charge up a battery than compared to just using gasoline. The only 'benefit' (if you can call it that) is that your pollution is coming out a smokestack instead of your tailpipe. It is a cheat - a ruse - a choice for ignorant suckers. The only way electric cars can reduce pollution is if they use a clean electrical source to charge.

So - can we swap over to 'clean' electical plants? Heck no. Solar doesn't operate at peak hours, and requires massive infrastructures to support - not to mention it needs 75% operating capacity in redundant FOSSIL fuel generation to deal with demand anyway. Same with wind. The only way to make it work is to replace all our coal plants with nuclear ones. Why aren't we talking about that? Because the 'green' movement doesn't like nuclear either.

You can't wish on a star and make green energy feasible. The hard reality is that the technology just isn't there yet, and that the green movement itself is standing in the way of the ONLY viable energy we have (clean coal & nuclear). Even the most promising 'alternative' energy options are still well over 30 years away from any sort of commercial, large scale viability that has any hope of even coming close to fossil fuels. That's just reality.

Now - are you (and your children) ready to pay 2,500+ a month for your electric bill? That's what it is going to cost you to use 'green' energy instead of coal. All so you can - what? Feel better about yourself? The planet isn't being destroyed except in the minds of the Flavor-aid drinkers.

OK. Super awesome cool looking aircraft. If I make a sci-fi movie I definitely want to cast this vehicle as a central character.

But the concept seems all wrong. I thought the point of UAVs was small, lightweight and inexpensive. This seems like a defense contractor trying to sell a Cadillac to someone who needs a delivery scooter. We already have a UAV that delivers smart missiles. If you need to deliver 2000lb bombs then scale it up. If you need an air-superiority drone then take a gun, stick a jet engine on it and design as much wing and fuselage around it as you need for it to have the flight characteristics you want.

Creating an all-in-one vehicle that can be converted to manned control will result in an aircraft that performs none of those intended roles as well as a purpose built vehicle for each of those roles...and at ten times the cost to build and operate.

This smells like the military industrial complex trying desperately to create a new bottomless pit of revenue.

Radio is still a valid, informative, engaging and easily accessible media. You discount its reliability and cultural familiarity, westy. Radio will never die, especially BECAUSE it can now be accessed via the net, satellite radio, podcasts etc. Plus it's relatively inexpensive to produce.

I contribute 3 hours of my time every week hosting a radioshow with my friends on University of Toronto's CIUT 89.5 fm (http://www.nightshift895.com). Radio plays an important role in establishing community, and encouraging participation in and discussion of community events/issues.

Meh, I'm equally tired of conventional, expensive, shitty games and inexpensive, shitty indy games.