Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, alan davies, optimal level, fucking cat people' to 'stephen fry, alan davies, clive anderson, optimal level, fucking cat people' - edited by xxovercastxx

And then they add salt to it.

At least it hasn't been spiked with foul tasting compounds of Cl and F that are intended to kill bacteria and to get you to ingest things that are really only useful topically to slow the erosion of teeth and have no additional benefit (but likely unwanted side effects) when taken systemically. Just search Google scholar for fluoride neurotoxicity in rats or check the CDC's recommendations on upper limits for fluoride levels in drinking water and consider how impossible it is to control the dose when people are drinking different amounts of water.

Fluoride is rapidly eliminated from the bloodstream via the kidneys and uptake by calcified tissues. However, people who lack proper kidney function are vulnerable to being poisoned by fluoridated water. The mechanism of action as a poison is essentially interfering with all kinds of enzymes. It has very broad dose-dependent systemic effects. The upper limit for safety is only 2x the "optimal level" used for preventing cavities, which is an absurdly small margin of error given the uncontrolled quantities of tap water people consume.

It's also immoral to force a specific medical treatment on everyone without their consent UNLESS abstention from the treatment endangers people other than themselves (i.e., vaccines).

Straight from the horses mouth.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I certainly didn't expect this clip of all clips to spark meaningful debate, but okay, I'm game.

rgroom, citations for your health care numbers please. My quick research finds that even Cato and Heritage admit to a 2-3% overhead in Medicare administrative costs. Heritage gives a pretty reasonable explanation for why that number wouldn't hold up if everyone was covered under Medicare, but they only bump that estimate up to 6%. Cato claims the 2-3% comes from an institutional negligence towards fraud and abuse that government is covering up, which sounds less reasonable to me. Private insurance is more like 12% according to the last couple major studies done, and Heritage provides similar numbers (7-10% for PPO, 15% for HMO, which would probably average out to 12% overall).

That mouthful said, I don't think the only metric for what makes a good health care system is low administrative cots, and I'm pretty sure low administrative costs aren't the only thing we should be turning an eye to when talking about health care cost reduction.

As for the EPA, it's not saying a national EPA > state equivalents, just that it's worth the $27, despite the insane amount of griping about tax money going to it. I personally would argue that you're half right -- local, decentralized solutions to environmental issues are what we need, but we also need a national, if not global, set of standards we all are working to meet, otherwise polluters just migrate to the least environmentally strict areas. The catchphrase is "Think Globally, Act Locally" if you recall.


Psychologic, I mostly agree with what you said. My only two disagreements would be the idea that Democrats/progressives are "afraid" of shrinking government; we just think the conservatives' plan of "small government" shouldn't be treated as a goal in and of itself, because it didn't work out so well in the past.

Also, clearly, if you listened to Obama's speech, he wasn't calling for Federal government or nothing, he was saying Federal government should create a framework that encourages and empowers local governments, businesses, non-profits, and individuals to solve our problems. The progressive argument with regard to regulation is that there's an optimal level and shape for them that doesn't exist at the extreme ends of the scale. We'd love to have an opposition party that helped find a proper balance, rather than try to constantly tip the scale over.

The other side makes the argument that the optimal government is one that sticks to armies and courts and nothing more. This video is a response to those people who, like Grover Norquist, want to drown government in a bathtub.

Other, more moderate people, we welcome with open arms. And weed.

lol, i deleted the folder for that paper last week.
I'll look it up again.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I certainly didn't expect this clip of all clips to spark meaningful debate, but okay, I'm game.

rgroom, citations for your health care numbers please. My quick research finds that even Cato and Heritage admit to a 2-3% overhead in Medicare administrative costs. Heritage gives a pretty reasonable explanation for why that number wouldn't hold up if everyone was covered under Medicare, but they only bump that estimate up to 6%. Cato claims the 2-3% comes from an institutional negligence towards fraud and abuse that government is covering up, which sounds less reasonable to me. Private insurance is more like 12% according to the last couple major studies done, and Heritage provides similar numbers (7-10% for PPO, 15% for HMO, which would probably average out to 12% overall).

That mouthful said, I don't think the only metric for what makes a good health care system is low administrative cots, and I'm pretty sure low administrative costs aren't the only thing we should be turning an eye to when talking about health care cost reduction.

As for the EPA, it's not saying a national EPA > state equivalents, just that it's worth the $27, despite the insane amount of griping about tax money going to it. I personally would argue that you're half right -- local, decentralized solutions to environmental issues are what we need, but we also need a national, if not global, set of standards we all are working to meet, otherwise polluters just migrate to the least environmentally strict areas. The catchphrase is "Think Globally, Act Locally" if you recall.


Psychologic, I mostly agree with what you said. My only two disagreements would be the idea that Democrats/progressives are "afraid" of shrinking government; we just think the conservatives' plan of "small government" shouldn't be treated as a goal in and of itself, because it didn't work out so well in the past.

Also, clearly, if you listened to Obama's speech, he wasn't calling for Federal government or nothing, he was saying Federal government should create a framework that encourages and empowers local governments, businesses, non-profits, and individuals to solve our problems. The progressive argument with regard to regulation is that there's an optimal level and shape for them that doesn't exist at the extreme ends of the scale. We'd love to have an opposition party that helped find a proper balance, rather than try to constantly tip the scale over.

The other side makes the argument that the optimal government is one that sticks to armies and courts and nothing more. This video is a response to those people who, like Grover Norquist, want to drown government in a bathtub.

Other, more moderate people, we welcome with open arms. And weed.

I certainly didn't expect this clip of all clips to spark meaningful debate, but okay, I'm game.

rgroom, citations for your health care numbers please. My quick research finds that even Cato and Heritage admit to a 2-3% overhead in Medicare administrative costs. Heritage gives a pretty reasonable explanation for why that number wouldn't hold up if everyone was covered under Medicare, but they only bump that estimate up to 6%. Cato claims the 2-3% comes from an institutional negligence towards fraud and abuse that government is covering up, which sounds less reasonable to me. Private insurance is more like 12% according to the last couple major studies done, and Heritage provides similar numbers (7-10% for PPO, 15% for HMO, which would probably average out to 12% overall).

That mouthful said, I don't think the only metric for what makes a good health care system is low administrative cots, and I'm pretty sure low administrative costs aren't the only thing we should be turning an eye to when talking about health care cost reduction.

As for the EPA, it's not saying a national EPA > state equivalents, just that it's worth the $27, despite the insane amount of griping about tax money going to it. I personally would argue that you're half right -- local, decentralized solutions to environmental issues are what we need, but we also need a national, if not global, set of standards we all are working to meet, otherwise polluters just migrate to the least environmentally strict areas. The catchphrase is "Think Globally, Act Locally" if you recall.


Psychologic, I mostly agree with what you said. My only two disagreements would be the idea that Democrats/progressives are "afraid" of shrinking government; we just think the conservatives' plan of "small government" shouldn't be treated as a goal in and of itself, because it didn't work out so well in the past.

Also, clearly, if you listened to Obama's speech, he wasn't calling for Federal government or nothing, he was saying Federal government should create a framework that encourages and empowers local governments, businesses, non-profits, and individuals to solve our problems. The progressive argument with regard to regulation is that there's an optimal level and shape for them that doesn't exist at the extreme ends of the scale. We'd love to have an opposition party that helped find a proper balance, rather than try to constantly tip the scale over.

The other side makes the argument that the optimal government is one that sticks to armies and courts and nothing more. This video is a response to those people who, like Grover Norquist, want to drown government in a bathtub.

Other, more moderate people, we welcome with open arms. And weed.

What conversation is here, is better than the clip from Fox and Friends that raises these kinds of silly aspersions.

First we need to point out that McCain's $5000 refundable tax credit for "healthcare" would work in much the same way. It's $5k into the pockets of people who aren't paying any taxes at all. McCain is clearly the socialist here.

I think, deedub, ya need to go looking for facts elsewhere than the Heritage Foundation, which is just another one of these think tanks whose raison d'etre is to support Republican/conservative policy.

There are two schools of thought about what makes an economy grow. Conservatives say that lessening government spending, and making sure that the rich bear less tax burden is the best/only way to create jobs.

The other school of thought is that more money in the hands of the lower & middle class creates more demand, and more lucrative possibilities for the rich to invest in -- only now they have to cater to the desires of the people of the lower/middle classes, instead of whatever the investor class feels like doing (like Credit Default Swaps, say).

Additionally, there's a dual benefit to government spending -- short term, it creates jobs, and pumps money into the economy, just like any other kind of spending. The other is that government can invest in things that have very long-term returns, like improved education, environmental protection, and improved infrastructure. In the short run, they can create deficits, but in the long run they make us all more wealthy as private industry takes advantage of the fruits of that public infrastructure (like with the Interstate Highways program).

Finally, we have an enormous national debt, largely created by Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Dubyah Bush. Now isn't a good time to try to pay it down, but tax increases are guaranteed during our lifetimes, and it's better they happen sooner rather than later. When it comes to asking who should pay those increased taxes, do you really think the poorest people should be asked to give the same portion as the people who've taken the lion's share of the growth over the last decade?

I get the argument that conservatives make, I just think, like theaceofclubz said, there's diminishing returns.

Think of the extreme case, the elimination of all income tax. Will that increase tax revenue? Certainly 100% tax would be similarly fruitless. I think Bush cut taxes to a level below the optimal level. Obama's supposed "largest tax increase in history" is to restore the capital gains tax to the level we had under Clinton, and raise taxes from 36% to 39% on net income above $250K, while cutting them on all income (including capital gains) below $250K.

I also think companies are too shortsighted with how they invest their money, so government programs can do things that corporations won't, because the ROI would take decades, or worse, might not produce a direct return for them.

^ You were talking about the debt -- I'll agree that Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy, since the tax rates were above the optimal level, and reduction was needed.

However, the deficit is another story.

Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for most of the debt we're carrying right now. They didn't cut spending in proportion to the tax cuts (or at all in Bush 43's case), just cut taxes.

Clinton has the best record of reducing the debt since WWII, blowjobs notwithstanding.

What did you think of the TPC's analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans?

Clinton's proposal is bullshit. She doesn't know economics.


Oil has huge negative externalities (i.e. pollution), so the only way to shift the market equilibrium to the socially optimal level is by taxing it heavily. Taxing the shit out of oil & coal is the best and easiest way to stop global warming. Compensate for its impact on poor commuters by giving out a flat rebate (like the stimulus package).

There are several economic arguments for national health care:

1. Healthcare has huge positive externalities. When someone is cured of disease, the benefit to society is greater than the benefit to the individual. Health care therefore should be subsidized to increase consumption of health care to the socially optimal level.
2. Dealing with a multitude of insurance companies who all want proof that each procedure is necessary has huge overhead costs for hospitals. A typical U.S. hospital has many more paperwork-jobs than doctors. This expensive excess of meddling middlemen could be avoided by national health care where treatment or non-treatment would be the doctor's choice.
3. To maximize profit, prices are set higher than the level at which there would be 100% utilization of equipment and other resources. A lot of useful and expensive equipment lays idle almost all of the time in the U.S. because the hospitals charge more for using it than most of the people who need it could afford, and insurance companies won't pay for it except in extreme cases. Preventative medical imaging is rare, and instead the machines lay idle. National health care would bring the cost to the user much closer to the marginal cost of operating the machine, and therefore increase the total utility derived from these expensive machines.