Knights & Knaves Alehouse

and Modernity = very, very, very good.

Ska wrote:Algolei----did you get a chance to read the concerns of the doctor in the other link concerning the problems with Canada's medical system?

No, I just leapt at the name "Belinda Stronach." (BTW, when I said she was a "right-wing loon," I didn't mean that the two terms were connected -- I just mean that she was both right-wing and a loon. Her politics make her right-wing, but her actions make her a loon! )

I'll go read the other thing now....

Edit: Well, he certainly has a point. But I don't think he's looking at the true cause of the majority of the problems. Our health care is funded by a government constantly being forced to make cuts by the right-wing elements that want to get rid of it. The problems include lack of funding, but also poor management. One hospital in Winnipeg hired a number of people to find ways to cut costs. They eliminated plenty of medical "waste" (i.e. "services that were being under-used") but in the end they also kept working at the hospital, for a net increase in costs.

Likewise, Winnipeg hospitals under a Conservative government moved to a centralised food preparation centre rather than having individual cooks and chefs at their own cafeterias. It was said this would save money. In the end, the costs came out the same. They got rid of cafeteria jobs, but had to hire delivery people, buy vehicles, maintain the vehicles, etc. etc.

They make toast, freeze dry it, deliver it to the cafeterias where it has to be reheated. I don't get that. How do you reheat toast? In a toaster? Or do you microwave it? Why can't the person who has to reheat the toast just put the bread in the toaster himself??

It is to laugh!

In the end, all systems have problems. Canada's healthcare isn't perfect, and neither is the States'. We're all doomed to follow the ideosyncracies of our governments, whether we vote for them or just buy stock in them.

Stonegiant wrote:Extreme Right= Fascism

Extreme Left= Communism

No, ideologically, both Fascism and Communism are movements of the Left as men like Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn observed. They spring from the same roots in the so-called Enlightenment, filtered through Hegel and Marx.

They have, at root, the same distorted views of the proper relationship between man and the state, man and his fellow man, and the malleability of the person.

They are both, at their heart, atheistic and materialistic philosophies that share far more similarities than differences.

Sean, I don't agree completely. I'd say (in the USA terminology)

far Right= pro free market (strongly support Bill of Rights) low taxes, small government (de-centralized government). One example would be Reagan

The Right is opposed to Fascism by its very nature of supporting "individualism" and self reliance over the wishes of the state.

Far Left= Socialist/Communists (major redistributors of wealth threw high taxes). I wouldn't say in our country Fascists by nature, but prone to be so because of their support of "communalism" and dependency on the state.

Fascism (Webster's) "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control "


You also have to consider these terms (right and left) apply to social issues as well. There are the "social-right" ("social conservatives") who are usually very religious (your Baptists, Born Agains etc.) and Social Liberals (who are usually secular, almost anti-relgious (the nuts that want to take the "In God We Trust" of our currency etc.

Then there are right and left as it relates to how we deal with foreign matters and the miliatry.

These can mix and match (with a level of extremeness for each) making for a confusing situation. Then there are issues that don't fall into a right or left position (like the Environment etc.). For instance, I (and just about every Republican and Libertarian I know) is extremely pro-environment, but this is also true of most liberals I know. Yet, I can point to many Republicans and Democrat politicians who obviously could care less about preserving wild places or extinction.

Remember fascist and communist have always opposed one another (Nazis vs. Communist in German politics, look even to the fascist and communist parties in the US prior to WWII). I look at the liberals and conservatives here as each dancing to the right and left of the center and neither being extreme right or left.

Stonegiant wrote:Remember fascist and communist have always opposed one another (Nazis vs. Communist in German politics, look even to the fascist and communist parties in the US prior to WWII). I look at the liberals and conservatives here as each dancing to the right and left of the center and neither being extreme right or left.

Not always, there was a period just before the Nazis took power when they joined forces with the Communist party (though this didn't last long). Hitler also signed the Non-Aggression Pact with the USSR and the SS trained under the KGB (yes it's pretty weird that guys training to root out Communists went to the USSR for training and that Communist secret services trained to root-out anti-communists trained them, but history is full of stuff like that).

Left and Right are terms coined in France back in the 18th Century and a pretty poor description of the range of political thought. Axe's mix and match pretty much right.

The British disliked the Fascist as well, that doesn't mean they were communists (or pro communists), many Brits hated communism and everything it stood for.

We're not in the French Revolution, so the terms are free of their original moorings. As Flambeaux pointed out, the American Revolution was the epitome of a liberalism the defense of which today is "conservative" in that it attempts to preserve our national tradition. There is some difficulty when only part of that tradition is respected, though.

Capitalize 'em, and you can find Liberalism and Conservatism as fairly coherent philosophies in some apparently little-read works by more often named (and selectively quoted) Brits. I reckon most Americans have a hybrid of both temperaments, a (common-sense, I think) mix reflected in our state and federal constitutions.

Self-styled conservatives whose sympathies lie with Metternich, the anti-democratic sort, are in even the European context reactionaries today.

So in their day were the Napoleons, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. Their new orders looked more like the old one of monarchy. They often seemed much more willing to grant temporal power to the Church than were the republicans (even when the latter were not in league with virulently anti-clerical radicals).

Radical socialists tend to hold to the Marxist scheme, in which "communism" proper is theoretically to follow the dissolution of the state -- not much different from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim World to Come. Nor does the authoritarian means to that millenarian end strike me as much different from what some religious "loons" propose.

However, the Communists are selling a relatively "new" brand, the Taliban an "old time" one.

If we can bother to concern ourselves with their original context, then I think Left and Right can sensibly be applied in terms of their relationships with the societal power structure. Originally, the former wanted to change the top-down hierarchy of the French state while the latter wanted to preserve it. A hard-line Communist in China or North Korea is in that light as much a "right-winger" as an anti-Communist military dictator somewhere else.

We have a great industry of newspaper columnists, radio-show hosts and other pundits devoted to purveying partisan propaganda. To the question, "Have you at last, Sir, no shame?," their answer can only entail more name-calling.

That seems to be about all the jargon of "political philosophy" is good for these days. As George Carlin put it:

Everyone who drives slower than than me is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 87_pf.html

So, massive tax increases for American families earning over 250 K (so, how many small business owners will this hit, how many employees will they have to fire or reduce salary to (remember small business is the #1 employer in this country), cut profit to hospitals and doctors, cut profit to drug companies, cut medical treatment to elderly (espl. readmissions into hospitals which is wasteful (despite being ordered by a doctor who just might know best), opting for a 30 day checkup (it sounding more and more like that bogus Bloomberg article isn't so bogus).

OK, what don't we see: no tort reform, not even a hint of it, no mention of getting rid of wasteful HMOs, no hint of reducing Red Tape or reducing the costs associated with FDA requirementes.

Once again, the doers (the producers and workers involved in actually providing health care) are treated like the "bad guy", like dirt, and the upper middle class tax payer hit. Nice! To the libs out there in lala land, be careful what you ask for, you migh just get it....in spades.

At first glance, it looks to me like another attempt at "pay as you go" fiduciary responsibility, which is just what one might reasonably expect (based on the campaign platform) of an Obama administration. I am inclined on principle to prefer an old-fashioned, "tax-and-spend Democratic" ethos to a "borrow-and-spend Republican" one -- but the Devil is in the details.

Unfuckingbelievable.

The US spends about double per citizen what the rest of the world spends on healthcare, and the expenditure's rising faster than inflation or earnings, and the best Obama can do is that?

Just nationalise it like everyone else, for goodness' sake.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Unfuckingbelievable.

The US spends about double per citizen what the rest of the world spends on healthcare, and the expenditure's rising faster than inflation or earnings, and the best Obama can do is that?

Just nationalise it like everyone else, for goodness' sake.

My sentiments exactly.

OT: Y'all in New Orleans get a chance to dance to some boogie from Eric Lindell and the Reds? I would not be sad if you sent those boys back Westerly home, and I'm listening to what I think is the first album (Variado) they put out from the Big Easy.

I could remember some good (but baaad) old days.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Unfuckingbelievable.

The US spends about double per citizen what the rest of the world spends on healthcare, and the expenditure's rising faster than inflation or earnings, and the best Obama can do is that?

Just nationalise it like everyone else, for goodness' sake.

Nationalizing it will still mean paying for it. That will be done threw taxes (they'll just be hidden). Doesn't England protect their healthcare profession from high rewards in the legal system?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/18/1865

This article is interesting. One of the main costs (30%) is the practise of over ordering tests (something like 600 billion). Why? Ultimately the fear of being sued. Same with the huge costs of Med Mal insurance for docs and hospitals (surely running well into the billions). Once again, remove the financial risk of being sued (not the right of the patient, but the rewards) and you remove this over testing burden as well as the med-mal insurance costs (so Joe B (if your still reading), that would be getting close to that 50% I was talking about threw reforming the present system). Its interesting how Obama and these many articles floating around don't mention Tort reform by name, but say fear is driving the over testing (fear of what? Why not say it...law suites. Its not the house burning down, but rather the risk it might one day happen you pay annually for insurance, that fear is the real cost) (I suspect its the trial attorney lobby behind this careful dance).

Infact, one of the reasons why socialized and nationalized medicine works is the absense of huge payouts from lawsuites, espl. "pain and suffering" (and thus people don't even bother sueing). P&P I suspect thats one of the big reasons your system is less expensive.

The other interesting arguement was the coverage of the full population threw private insurance, not as some sort of socialized system, but rather to have a check against doctors over ordering tests, and more importantly to give a reason for the patient to hold off. With medicare there is no built in reason to consider costs (as there is for the patient with private health insurance).

This is a very logical arguement. If everyone is given free medical care, the second they get sick they will run not to their medicine cabinet, but instead to the doctor demanding all sorts of tests (why not its free) and the doctor will have to oblige. If they miss something the patient would likely sue (their chance at winning the powerball lottery$$$). Private insurance would make the patient think twice and be more self reliant. If a test can't be ordered because the insurance says "no, its too expensive and unwarranted" it takes the doctor and hospital completely off the hook.

The third interesting point was the piece of mind it brings for those with potentially serious problems...to have a system that you know you can use when you need it. When you have something serious (cancer, heart disease, auto immune disease etc.) the last thing you want to worry about is "whats the wait to get tested to see if I have it" or "can I get this or that medication I've read works well"? More then ever patients want to have piece of mind and play a role in their own medical care. And who can blame them.

I can't help but fondly recall a time when this was not a big issue.

We were making Thunderbirds,