Politics 2017 part V

[redneckdevil]

I thinks more along the lines of not is there a cheaper and better health care system but a system that will go down in cost while quality rises.

Like if Sweden health care system is better and cheaper than ours right now, but if they lower their costs in the future will the quality of health care still go up?

Edited May 5, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Hurlshort]

 

Yep. That was the question. I really pity the poor kids that end up with Hurlshot as a teacher...

 

 

Are the personal attacks really necessary?

[Ben No.3]

 

Still a bill even if they don't

So if you die now your relatives get the bill? Beautiful.

 

 

A little more than 100 days, and already there's no rational reason left to support Trump in any way, shape or form.

Yes there is, Accelerationism. Trump will cause the burgeoning nationalist movement to miscarry before it has a chance to live while letting the most destructive forces of capital run unchecked. You're a ****ty commie if you don't understand this concept.

the devil is in the detail. You have a point, and that would mean I see a benefit in Trumps presidency, however, it does NOT mean that I support Trump. There is an important difference here. Edited May 5, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Wrath of Dagon]

Our system isn't bad. It's pretty good to very good for most people, but pretty bad for some people. As far as spending more than anyone, that's not very surprising as we're the richest country in the world by far. Think of it as welfare and jobs program for medical professionals. Edit: Even with Medicare, which is single payer, the Congress tried to control costs but couldn't because of the medical lobby. So making everything single payer won't necessarily reduce costs, it'll just force lobbyists to give bigger bribes.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Ben No.3]

 

Yep. That was the question. I really pity the poor kids that end up with Hurlshot as a teacher...

 

Are the personal attacks really necessary?

Ad hominem attacks are often the last resort for people who have lost the debate. I feel you... "if you are a socialist, then why do you live and participate in a capitalist system?" If people are at the point where they become ad hominem, you actually already won the debate since they apparently lack any argument against your theory (so they instead attack you personally). Of course, ones character changes nothing about the (non)validity of ones statements. But people don't like to admit they're wrong sometimes (and I myself am often guilty of this).

[Hurlshort]

Think of it as welfare and jobs program for medical professionals.

 

Hah, I like this part.  

 

I probably wouldn't complain as much is the money was really getting to the medical professionals. Unfortunately I think it ends up in the hands of executives more often than not.

[Ben No.3]

Our system isn't bad. It's pretty good to very good for most people, but pretty bad for some people. As far as spending more than anyone, that's not very surprising as we're the richest country in the world by far. Think of it as welfare and jobs program for medical professionals. Edit: Even with Medicare, which is single payer, the Congress tried to control costs but couldn't because of the medical lobby. So making everything single payer won't necessarily reduce costs, it'll just force lobbyists to give bigger bribes.

Which should lower the amount of lobbying according to the market laws

 

Sorry. I couldn't resist

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

The problem with our system isn't the insurance companies, popular as that view may be. The problem is there's no competition between providers, thus they can charge whatever they can get away with. Further, since a third party normally pays instead of the consumer, the consumer doesn't care about costs. But I'm curious, is there a health system where costs go down while quality and coverage go up?

Well the US is paying more than everyone else, so we should expect to have the best coverage and care. I'm pretty sure we looked at a bunch of data that showed that wasn't true recently. So yes, there are a number of examples of health systems with less cost and better quality and coverage.

*Rising hand*

That wasn't what he asked, Mr. Teacher.

I'm concerned about your reading comprehension marks, student.

What do you actually teach?

[Hurlshort]

 

What do you actually teach?

 

 

7th grade History (technically called Social Science)

Edited May 5, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Ben No.3]

 

What do you actually teach?

 

7th grade History (technically called Social Science)

You have my interest... what topics are you handling and how interested is the "average student"?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Think of it as welfare and jobs program for medical professionals.

 

Hah, I like this part.  

 

I probably wouldn't complain as much is the money was really getting to the medical professionals. Unfortunately I think it ends up in the hands of executives more often than not.

 

I disagree. I think hospitals and every one working for them make a mint. Also doctors, especially specialists. Pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers. Speaking of socialized medicine, I don't think any of those countries have the same high tech equipment that's common in US. During the London Olympics, GE was running commercials about how they had to donate neo-natal units to a British hospital.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Yep. That was the question. I really pity the poor kids that end up with Hurlshot as a teacher...

 

Are the personal attacks really necessary?

Well, you used your "teacher credentials" a few times to "prove" your point or that you have to be right 'coz "you're a teacher" so I'm gonna keep bursting your bubble to keep you humble.

All praise our hero sharp one, defeater of all bubbles

 

Criticism: even though you are a history teacher, you apparently lack the understanding of this specific historical event I will now explain to you so we can have a decent discussion

 

Attack: You and everything you do and teach is $hit

Edited May 5, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

What do you actually teach?

7th grade History (technically called Social Science)

You have my interest... [...] how interested is the "average student"?

 

 

Isn't there an old adage about youth being wasted on the young? If I had to guess, I would think that's probably your answer for a lot of kids.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

What do you actually teach?

7th grade History (technically called Social Science)

You have my interest... [...] how interested is the "average student"?

Isn't there an old adage about youth being wasted on the young? If I had to guess, I would think that's probably your answer for a lot of kids.

There are rumours of these socially kinda akward kids who take genuine interest in history, politics, philosophy and the like. Purely hypothetical. Of course. Not like I know any such persons. Ahem. Edited May 5, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Hurlshort]

Well here are my content standards: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/histsocscistnd.pdf

 

But really, the content is just a vehicle, the goal of a 7th grade teacher is to help students develop skills.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Personally, I hated school right up until high school, when I was lucky to get a really cool English teacher and Science teacher (whom I'm still friends with today, though both have recently retired...) that pretty drastically changed my view of school, personal disposition, and life in general. I'm not sure what kind of person I would be without them today. So yeah, I can personally attest to the idea that youth is indeed wasted on the young...but yes, there are a few students genuinely interested in school, of course.

 

(e): fixed this post not to be terrible

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[redneckdevil]

Loved history in school, I was the student who would read his history book for fun. Math was easy for me, either I had great teachers or I could just understand it. Science I did well thru osmosis and sleeping.

As you all can tell English was my worse subject thru out school, even though I used to write all the time.

Sad that I have such great hand writing but the grammar always sucks lol

[Bartimaeus]

I'm the opposite: my handwriting is that of a 150 year old's, but my grammar is - well, I think anyways - pretty good. Good thing I don't have to write out stuff by hand too often.

 

It wasn't that it was too hard or anything - it's just that it always felt like a big waste of time. High school made me realize that you get some of what you put into it...and then high school was suddenly over in the blink of an eye, and then you get to college and you start your generals and realize, "Hey, wait a second, this IS a big fat waste of my time!". Until you start some of your core classes (hopefully!), anyways...

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Chilloutman]

Is some foreign language mandatory in US?

[Bartimaeus]

It's mandatory for a 4 year college degree (in most states?) these days, I think.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Not in Texas at least. I doubt in most other states either.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, I'm looking it up more, and it seems like it's more of a requirement for "competitive" (i.e. generally the highest-end...or otherwise more sought-after) schools than a strict requirement of some kind. Good call.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Amentep]

Are you saying required to get into the 4-year program or required to graduate from the program? Most HS (even Texas, IIRC) require some form of FL work for HS Graduation.  So a lot of colleges expect it for admissions purposes. But I'd be surprised if a lot of 4-year BS programs are requiring a foreign language at the most competitive schools as part of the graduation requirements.  Liberal arts programs, maybe, but not science.

[Bartimaeus]

Requirement for admission, my bad. A lot of "2 years of foreign language required"s and "4 years strongly suggested"s from what I was reading, .

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Chilloutman]

heh, funny, we have it from basic school