Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You saw the part where the VA beat out Kaiser and the blues in quality, right?

Wasn't that limited to specific items?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And that was my point about your grandmother. Do you know at all how Medicare works?

A little, though not as much as you. What I do know is that there are inherent inefficiencies with managing a program that large, and these get magnified when the government is the manager.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think the scientists feel the real debate about this took place about 150 years ago. Should they be required to appear at "Earth - Flat or Not?" debates?

If people are taking over our school system that want to teach the world is flat then yes. It is funny you say that, because there are fundamentalists that think the earth is flat (because the bible implies that it is) and there are people who think that the sun revolves around the earth (as is implied in the Bible). The Creationist position is just as absurd as these two other propositions.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wasn't that limited to specific items?

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was with regard to diabetes care. The New England Journal of Medicine (pinko commies, I know...) study was with regard to quality in general. The National Committee for Quality Assurance looks at quality in general.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A little, though not as much as you. What I do know is that there are inherent inefficiencies with managing a program that large, and these get magnified when the government is the manager.

Right, which is why there are fiscal intermediaries scattered across the country in the Medicare system. Trail Blazer here in Texas, a private company, is who you talk to about Medicare issues, not CMS in Baltimore.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
If people are taking over our school system that want to teach the world is flat then yes. It is funny you say that, because there are fundamentalists that think the earth is flat (because the bible implies that it is) and there are people who think that the sun revolves around the earth (as is implied in the Bible). The Creationist position is just as absurd as these two other propositions.

If this is so important, why are these viewpoints tolerated in your party? How much are those votes worth?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If this is so important, why are these viewpoints tolerated in your party? How much are those votes worth?

are you proposing proof of education to receive a ballot, like a poll test?

as Kramer would say...DEAL!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
If people are taking over our school system that want to teach the world is flat then yes. It is funny you say that, because there are fundamentalists that think the earth is flat (because the bible implies that it is) and there are people who think that the sun revolves around the earth (as is implied in the Bible). The Creationist position is just as absurd as these two other propositions.

Two hundred years before Christ, Eratosthenes deduced the diameter of the earth from some simple geometric measurements. It amazes me that some people believe God gave us brains so that we could refuse to use them.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What is there to power service? You flip a switch and the light comes on. What is there to do better, unless you mean cheaper, in which case, I would ask whether it was subsidized.

No, I meant better service. Sometimes flipping a switch doesn't make the lights come on. Ice storms knock down the lines. Sometimes a transformer blows. A construction crew has been known to be a bit too careless with the backhoe.

In my experience, the municipal owened utility provided better service. Less power losses. More responsive customer service agents answering the phone.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Real cops are better than rent a cops, but if privatized (which, for other reasons, is probably not a good idea) I bet it would be done for less money.

Prisons are privatized in some places. I don't think that it has worked out too well.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure what you mean by preventing financial collapse.

Since the Fed was created, we've had one doozy collapse in 1929, but nothing else was close. Before the Fed was created, and private bankers essentially controlled the circulation of money, there seemed to be a "Panic" every few years. I'm too lazy to google them, but I would bet that between the end of the Civil War and the creation of the Fed, there were probably a dozen or so.

Originally posted by sgtclub
ON the FDA, again, give a private entity this oversight ability, and I'm confident you would be as happy with the results. See NYSE/Nasdaq.

The NYSE sure did a bang-up job in the 1920s, didn't it? Google "Richard Whitney" or "Pecora Hearings." The reason that self-regulation works well now is not that the NYSE and NASD are "private entities." Heck, I'd even argue that they aren't even private anymore, given that their rules were approved by the SEC. No, the reason that self-regulation works is because the muscle of the SEC sits behind the NASD and NYSE. Kind of like how the muscle of the Roman legions backed up King Herod.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Right, which is why there are fiscal intermediaries scattered across the country in the Medicare system. Trail Blazer here in Texas, a private company, is who you talk to about Medicare issues, not CMS in Baltimore.

I know you said you would not pick a private hospital over a public one, but if you had a choice between Los Angeles County and Stanford hospital, I am pretty sure you would pick Stanford. I have been to both of these a few times and there really is no comparison.

In response to Sidd, I had heard that health care was a problem but I thought the problem was uninsured middle class people. All the health care plans I had heard of used the private system as much as possible and required company's to provide health insurance to their employees. Even Hillary's health care plan would not solve the competitiveness problem because it mostly relies on companys providing health insurance. I had never heard the argument that in order to make the US more competitive the Government should provide for everyones health care. What I also don't understand, if this is such a problem, why the US Chamber of commerce does not lobby for a national health care system so their members don't have to provide health insurance.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If this is so important, why are these viewpoints tolerated in your party? How much are those votes worth?

Considering that half the US population does not believe in evolution, these votes are worth a lot. Just ask Al Gore who would not critisize the Kansas school board for its stance on creationism.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Bob
No, I meant better service. Sometimes flipping a switch doesn't make the lights come on. Ice storms knock down the lines. Sometimes a transformer blows. A construction crew has been known to be a bit too careless with the backhoe.

In my experience, the municipal owened utility provided better service. Less power losses. More responsive customer service agents answering the phone.

You clearly are not thinking this through. Private utilities keep their eyes on the bottom line. They will provide power where it makes economic sense to do so and will not run expensive lines to out of the way places where it would not be profitable for them to do so. Hello darkness for the Red States, goodbye FoxNews. It's a win, win!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I know you said you would not pick a private hospital over a public one, but if you had a choice between Los Angeles County and Stanford hospital, I am pretty sure you would pick Stanford. I have been to both of these a few times and there really is no comparison.

Depends on what I was going for. If I were in a trauma situation, I'd go to Ben Taub (county hospital) over any other hosptial in Houston.

In response to Sidd, I had heard that health care was a problem but I thought the problem was uninsured middle class people. All the health care plans I had heard of used the private system as much as possible and required company's to provide health insurance to their employees. Even Hillary's health care plan would not solve the competitiveness problem because it mostly relies on companys providing health insurance. I had never heard the argument that in order to make the US more competitive the Government should provide for everyones health care. What I also don't understand, if this is such a problem, why the US Chamber of commerce does not lobby for a national health care system so their members don't have to provide health insurance.

My understanding is that the chairman of GM has been quietly polling other companies about about healthcare. He seems to think that the recent troubles there are directly related to healthcare costs. I know quite a few Democrats who will run next term on healthcare aimed at small business people who cannot afford health insurance for the workforce any more.

Problem politically is the money involved. The second anyone opens their mouth on healthcare, all of the insurance companies and (for profit) hosptials start contributing to campaigns to get the person to shut up about it.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
Now that you and LessinSF seem to be holding hands and singing Kumbaya, and have agreed on a National Health Care system where we knock of the aged and the crippled there are still a few problems. As someone that has lived in a few nations that have a national health care system, it always seems to suck. In Japan, the system was so bad that I paid to use private doctors and it cost me a fortune. After going to the clinics in England I felt like taking a shower. I wouldn't send my cats to the South Surrey medical clinic. I think one of the main problems is the free rider problem. If health care is free people will go to see the doctor every time their nose itches. In addition, there is no incentive to keep up quality. How do you stop the National Health Care system from turning into the DMV?

You should reread what I said. I am opposed to a national health care system. All I said was that if there was going to be additional governmental involvement in an effort to control skyrocketing costs, the analysis applied should be a cost-benefit one akin to what Oregon is trying to do, not whatever fucked-up approach would actually be pushed or applied.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Considering that half the US population does not believe in evolution, these votes are worth a lot.

Cite, please. And your use of the phrase "believe in" is telling in that it betrays your party's confusion over issues of faith and science.

Not only do I dispute your numbers, but I question whether those "beliefs" on evolution are genuinely held. Seems to me the creationism folk are also against birth control and sex education. Could it be that they're afraid of getting Darwined out of existence?

Just ask Al Gore who would not critisize the Kansas school board for its stance on creationism.

His lack of leadership ability (and the Florida debacle and a few SC justices) cost him the presidency. He should have condemned Kansas, like every responsible, educated adult should.