Guard Dog

Unless the subject has no shame.

No want for fools here Volo.

I stated before I know little and less about the health care business. But I do know quite a bit about the veterinary business. That is entirely consumer driven. There is only a little government oversight and then only at a state level. And with no insurance interference to speak of the cost is paid by the consumer. So it is bad for business for a vet to make insane mark ups on their goods and services because customers will simply take their business elsewhere. Case in point. A vet we use in a dog rescue organization I volunteer with charges patients $75 for an x-ray. I happen to know the film costs about $50 per exposure, then add in a reasonable $5-$10 for equipment wear and tear, then a $10-$15 mark up and there is your price. The Vet down the street charges about the same. Why? Because he does not want his patients going down the street for the same services for less. And they would. Basic simple economics and it is thriving, unfettered by insurance, government bureaucracy, etc. The US health care system once operated EXACTLY like this. I had an x-ray done in an emergency room two years ago. It was $450 that my insurance covered. What the hell is wrong here. Same film, practically the same machine (I think my Vets was newer) but the Vet knows they cannot go hog wild and abuse their client the way the hospital did my insurance company. I used this example last time we discussed this but it is true. One of my dogs developed a hernia. I took her to the vet got an x-ray and diagnosis in the first visit. They scheduled surgery two days later. The whole bill was a little more than $800 all told and she came through beautifully. And you can bet if the Vet down the street would have done it it for $600 I would have gone there. If that were me I'd have to see my regular doctor, after a 6 week wait for an appointment. He would take an x-ray and refer me to a specialist. After another six weeks I'd see the specialist and he would take another x-ray. Then they would schedule surgery which would take a few more weeks. By then I would not even need it. If the US health care system were allowed to operate more like veterinary medicine I think 80% of the problems would be solved. I realize than many of you lean towards socialism on this board, and unfettered capitalism is an anathema to most of you. But it really does work well, and the only time it does not is when government gets involved.

Of course it all free. The doctors work for free, the hospital electricity is free, the medications, supplies, nurses all free free free! Listen Slug, none of it is free. It is all paid for in taxes. To bring that kind of system to the US would mean staggaring new taxes. And Americans will-not-suffer-it. Believe me, the quickest way to end your political career here is to propose and push a massive tax increase. Just ask Jimmy Carter, George H Bush, the congressional democrats of 1994, Florida Lt-Governor Buddy (state income tax) McKay, and others I could name. I agree with Enoch (for a change) the problem is the insurance companies. But the government is NOT the answer I think.

Good answer!

Where the heck are you from Gorgon? I just realized I did not know.

To be honest I know very little about this subject. But I do have two points to make. In 1995 Hillary Clinton was put in charge of a team of bean counters, career bureaucrats, lawyers, and political neophytes (not a single doctor or health care professional) and they worked for a year in secret to come up with a revamp plan for the US health care system. Their solution was for the government to seize control of 1/7 to the US economy and take it over like the Soviets rolling into Prague. The American people loved the idea so much we threw the democrats out of office in 1994. I realize the health care system is not perfect but having the government take it over is just not the answer. Have any of you ever been to a VA hospital and compared it to a pay-as-you-go private hospital? Trust me, you do not want this.

Heh, and you wonder why Americans like me (and so many others you might be surprised) argue for a return to the Monroe Doctrine, the awarding of MFN status to only Western Hemisphere nations, and elimination of ALL foreign aid to any nation west of Hawaii and east of Brazil. If the rest of the world is so infatuated with China, they can go to them next time humanitarian aid is needed. Seriously though, to read the posts on this board, I am often surprised at how much hatred and vitriol is directed at the US. And how little is directed at China, Iran, North Korea, and others who are actively working to either expand their influence at other people's expense or are outright prepping for a war. China emits more greenhouse gas than the US, has a far, far worse record on human rights, actively censors and suppresses it's people, and practices an extremely ruthless form of business "imperialism" in international affairs. As this article points out. China makes no effort to mitigate environmental damage in ANY industrial endeavors, does not know the meaning of the term "Quality Control" and severely restricts the personal freedoms and information available to it's citizens. In short, liberals (like those here) should hate China with a passion because it is the antithesis of everything they stand for. But as you pointed out Wals, they do not. Why?

Actually I should clarify. All of my comments were about the US governemnt rather than government in general. There is a great gap between what Sand (and many others) think the US Government should do and is permitted to do.

And those who can't help themselves due to illness or disability? They should just die and rot, right? You know... forget it. Arguing with you is like swimming in tar. The more you struggle the deeper you get. BTW, taking an example to an unreasonable extreme is not the way to make a point. Plus I just cant get past you thinking it the governments job to "take care of everyone". As if there was not other way.

"Salus Populi Suprema Lex" huh? I disagree. But that is an old arguement neither of us will win. I think Mao said that too. The governments job is not to serve the people but to provide the enviorment for the people to help themselves. But whatever, that is why you vote for democrats and I don't. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nothing makes a workplace more miserable than high expectations coupled with bad management. On another note, I read an article a little while ago that I just cannot find to link. I remember it was in Time magazine. Anyway, it had suicide rates broken down by profession. Police and psychologists were number one and two. Surprisingly (or maybe not after reading Nights post) Computer Engineer/Software Engineer was in the top 10, around 5-6. Good luck Night. It sounds only a little less difficult than climbing Everest without supplemental oxygen though.

You know better than that. I said get the government out of the picture. Without government funding (and consequently interference) there is no science vs faith debate because the only thing they have in common IS government. Federal government that is. If any state wishes to fund any scientific research then they are free to do so as long as the state constitution allows. Florida does fund a number of research programs. Besides what you were wrong on is Bush did not veto Stem Cell research, he just said he would not pay for it.

Have you ever stood beside a murky lake and saw strange ripples and waves in what would otherwise be still water? It gives you the feeling there is something going on below the surface that you just can't see? Maybe something sinister? I get that feeling a lot these days when we talk about China and the far east. But kudos to the Japanese for laying the groundwork that may weaken the position of a rival. That is just good business.

Thats different. The constitution requires the Federal Government to maintain the military, so I have no complaint with defense spending. The amount, application and management of it, that is a different story. I was not defending Bush, I was calling Sand on something he said that was wrong.

True enough and you hear me (and others) complaining about it here, on libertypost.org, and other similar boards We did not tell Bush to be a narrow moralist. He already was one, and everyone knew. Yup, we got exactly what was advertised in Bush. One thing to his credit he did not present himself as a moderate then govern as a conservative. But the thing is, and I think most people would agree, Bush was elected not because he was a good candidate but because the alternative was so repulsive it made him the best choice. I voted for him in 2000 because Al Gore is an Orwellian monster (believe me, I've met him twice), but voted for Mike Badnarik in 2004 because the choice between Bush and Kerry was like choosing to be stabbed or shot. Back OT now. Politics is the art of "all things considered." And like it or not religion gets a seat at that table because religious people vote. And when religious interests conflict with research interests one has to win one has to lose. So the government cannot serve them both without political repercussions so the best thing is to ignore them both and pay no money to either. And how nice, the 1st and 10th amendments of the Constitution instruct the government to do just that. Those Founders were pretty smart huh? If they had just followed a strict interpretation of the law people like Sand would not be angry today. If you give a kid a toy, then take it away, they cry. But if they never had the toy to begin with.... you get the idea.

If you cant dazzle them with brilliance then distract them with B.S.

For Gods sake (no pun intended) Sand, Bush only vetoed FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research. And he was correct to do so, albeit not for the reasons he actually did it. I never read a phrase in the Constitution anywhere that stated is was Uncle Sam's job to promote, fund, aid, or hinder scientific research of any kind. Stem Cell research still goes on through private funding. Mostly paid for by the "big evil pharmaceutical" companies.

Hokay, by a show of hands. How many people have started up new BG and BG2 games because of this thread? *Guard Dog raises hand*

I haven't played NWN1 in ages and only played the Paladin Trilogy as a player made module (well I only got through half of Midnight before a problem warranted a reformat), but do you have to roll back patches to play these modules (I have 1.68 and they need 1.62)? I really doubt it. I never had to roll back for any mod. Usually all it means is the mod author will not have used some types of content because it was not available when the mod was made.

Taks is right Calax. The article you linked is an op-ed opinion piece. And a rather shrill and uninformed one at that. The ramblings of a pundit with an axe to grind is not a news story and generally should not be held up to to back an opinion you cannot otherwise defend. Ok I'll buy that about the war powers quip but based on the rest of your post it was hard to tell.

Farb, if you own NWN1 drop everything you are doing and down load these two mods: In the Footsteps of Dante & The Nature of a Man If you do not own NWN1 go buy it and play those two mods. It can be had for $10 US these days. You had best not be setting my hopes up too high... You've got my interest going throught the roof. -Farb You will thank me later!

Farb, if you own NWN1 drop everything you are doing and down load these two mods: In the Footsteps of Dante & The Nature of a Man If you do not own NWN1 go buy it and play those two mods. It can be had for $10 US these days.

The hole gets deeper and deeper. Alright Calax, exactly what civil liberties do you think have been overrun? When and where did Bush say the executive was immune to oversight with respect to intelligence. Both halves of congress has intelligence comittees and all members are "in the loop." Bush repealed the war powers act????? Do people tell you these things or are you just making them up? The executive branch cannot repeal anything. That is a legislative function and the President does not legislate. Only congress can do that and it will be a cold day in hell before that happens no matter who is in office. There are many and more reasons to dislike Bush and he has not been a good President to say the least. But the things you are posting do not make sense.

I'm with you. Of all of the candidates to date Ron Paul is my favorite by a long, long way. Too bad he has no shot. As for Clinton, unless you like the idea of a heavy handed, intrusive, big brother government she (and most of the other democrats) should scare the bejesus out of you. I have no problem voting for a woman, but by God not THAT one. The only democrat in the running I would find palatable is Bill Richardson. And he has no shot.