By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Democrats should heed this warning from Mass.

famousringo on 13 January 2010
Chairman-Mao said:
Socialized health care isn't as good as people think. I'm Canadian and we have it. Our taxes are much higher and if you don't get injured then you're paying higher taxes for nothing.

Did you know that the United States spends more government money as a share of GDP on health than Canada does? The average Canadian isn't actually paying more taxes for health care than the average American does. You or your employer might be paying less in premiums, though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_exp_pub_of_gdp-health-expenditure-public-of-gdp



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network
Akvod on 13 January 2010
Zucas said:
Akvod said:
Zucas said:
Why aren't they listening to the people? Because the people can't be trusted. This is a republic not a democracy similar to that of the Greek city-states. If the founding fathers had ever thought the masses would know what was right for the nation as a whole they would have made a pure democracy or a republic where the people elect all decisions. Instead our Constitution tries every way possible to keep the masses from deciding things in the country, although a lot of that has been overturned.

As Madison implied in Federalist #10, the masses can't be left to decide for the entire nation, or what he coined as the violence of factions. People can be easily manipulated and controlled and therefore they shouldn't be paid attention too.


Now to this exact position, who knows if the people are right. All I know, James Madison would say who really gives a shit. How many of those people actually came to that decision with anyone but their own self-interests at mind. Maybe a few, a dozen, ONE.

This all goes back to the trustee versus delegate argument. In a republic, should the representatives do exactly what the populous that voted them in wants (delegate) or were they voted in to use their best judgment on decisions (trustee). I think in this country we seem to see it more as a delegate position, but I doubt the founding fathers would have seen that... or maybe they would have if only the RIGHT people were voting.

So when discussing this, I obviously don't agree with most of the bill. However, I also don't think the masses should be the deciding factor because I don't think any of them have intentions beyond self-interest. Hell if I were a poltician, despite being a strong libertarian, I'm not going to let the violence of factions affect my decision. I would make a decisions that is in the best interest of preserving rights and maintaining the well-being of the nation and its citizens.

I guess one of the major flaws of a democratic government is how involved the people become. If they aren't well educated or knowledgeable in the matters then they aren't capable of running a government. Same problem comes with a republic as if they aren't capable of making the decisions how are they capable of choosing the right people to run the government (which we all know isn't done well). Guess the only way a democracy can work is the idea of checks and balances not on just government but the people's involvement as well. Despite most Americans being manipulated to think democracy is the greatest thing ever, its quite obvious it has numerous flaws that we have to take into account just like any other form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias

?

O.o

Sound a bit scary there.

In my political theory class I took,  I actually read Gorgias from Plato.  Of course Socrates completely owned him in the story and he even began to change his opinion, but man someone who prides themselves in rhetoric rather than justice is quite disturbing.  Would always say in the story how he could convince someone over a doctor about such things which is just disturbing.  Was always meant to be a knock at politicians who instead of having justice at heart only sought to deceive.  Socrates was always concerned with the bettering of the human soul while he saw the rest concerned with obtaining power, or in this case power through manipulation and deception.  Sounds very familiar to politicians nowadays and the factions Madison had talked about. 

Yeah, but it sounded like Socrates wanted a Technocracy or a Dictatorship. Which is why I had that little diagram of transition of governments.

You have a dictator (a capable one man leader), but eventually it'll turn into an Monarchy (Caesar->Augustus->Whole line of emperors) and stagnate.

You have Democracy, you'll have sophists take advantage of them. Have representatives, it's just a transition of sophist->Representative.

I think it's like with Thucydides and Histories of Peloponesian Wars. Everyone is just out there for themselves. The Demos, the Sophists, the leaders, etc. You'll have a confederation, but it'll break up since people won't be willing to defend other people's homes if their own got ravaged. You'll have cities spared or massacred, all so... chaoticly? Unstablly? Decided based on profit.

 

If you can read it on Google books or whatever, Cleon and whoever he debated is the greatest example. Cleon is the asshole asking for an extermination of a city, but the guy who's fighting him sounds even MORE scarier, because of how amoral he is.

...

 

Yeah, I rambled. Pretty much, every argument for government sounds bad IMHO. Anarchy sounds like shit.

We should all just learn to cope with imperfection.



mrstickball on 13 January 2010
Akvod said:
Zucas said:
Akvod said:
Zucas said:
Why aren't they listening to the people? Because the people can't be trusted. This is a republic not a democracy similar to that of the Greek city-states. If the founding fathers had ever thought the masses would know what was right for the nation as a whole they would have made a pure democracy or a republic where the people elect all decisions. Instead our Constitution tries every way possible to keep the masses from deciding things in the country, although a lot of that has been overturned.

As Madison implied in Federalist #10, the masses can't be left to decide for the entire nation, or what he coined as the violence of factions. People can be easily manipulated and controlled and therefore they shouldn't be paid attention too.


Now to this exact position, who knows if the people are right. All I know, James Madison would say who really gives a shit. How many of those people actually came to that decision with anyone but their own self-interests at mind. Maybe a few, a dozen, ONE.

This all goes back to the trustee versus delegate argument. In a republic, should the representatives do exactly what the populous that voted them in wants (delegate) or were they voted in to use their best judgment on decisions (trustee). I think in this country we seem to see it more as a delegate position, but I doubt the founding fathers would have seen that... or maybe they would have if only the RIGHT people were voting.

So when discussing this, I obviously don't agree with most of the bill. However, I also don't think the masses should be the deciding factor because I don't think any of them have intentions beyond self-interest. Hell if I were a poltician, despite being a strong libertarian, I'm not going to let the violence of factions affect my decision. I would make a decisions that is in the best interest of preserving rights and maintaining the well-being of the nation and its citizens.

I guess one of the major flaws of a democratic government is how involved the people become. If they aren't well educated or knowledgeable in the matters then they aren't capable of running a government. Same problem comes with a republic as if they aren't capable of making the decisions how are they capable of choosing the right people to run the government (which we all know isn't done well). Guess the only way a democracy can work is the idea of checks and balances not on just government but the people's involvement as well. Despite most Americans being manipulated to think democracy is the greatest thing ever, its quite obvious it has numerous flaws that we have to take into account just like any other form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias

?

O.o

Sound a bit scary there.

In my political theory class I took,  I actually read Gorgias from Plato.  Of course Socrates completely owned him in the story and he even began to change his opinion, but man someone who prides themselves in rhetoric rather than justice is quite disturbing.  Would always say in the story how he could convince someone over a doctor about such things which is just disturbing.  Was always meant to be a knock at politicians who instead of having justice at heart only sought to deceive.  Socrates was always concerned with the bettering of the human soul while he saw the rest concerned with obtaining power, or in this case power through manipulation and deception.  Sounds very familiar to politicians nowadays and the factions Madison had talked about. 

Yeah, but it sounded like Socrates wanted a Technocracy or a Dictatorship. Which is why I had that little diagram of transition of governments.

You have a dictator (a capable one man leader), but eventually it'll turn into an Monarchy (Caesar->Augustus->Whole line of emperors) and stagnate.

You have Democracy, you'll have sophists take advantage of them. Have representatives, it's just a transition of sophist->Representative.

I think it's like with Thucydides and Histories of Peloponesian Wars. Everyone is just out there for themselves. The Demos, the Sophists, the leaders, etc. You'll have a confederation, but it'll break up since people won't be willing to defend other people's homes if their own got ravaged. You'll have cities spared or massacred, all so... chaoticly? Unstablly? Decided based on profit.

 

If you can read it on Google books or whatever, Cleon and whoever he debated is the greatest example. Cleon is the asshole asking for an extermination of a city, but the guy who's fighting him sounds even MORE scarier, because of how amoral he is.

...

 

Yeah, I rambled. Pretty much, every argument for government sounds bad IMHO. Anarchy sounds like shit.

We should all just learn to cope with imperfection.

I think the real problem with the American federal republic is the limit of government. That is, that if all government is bad, then we must limit the term and scope of government. Unfortunately, we have a president that, if lucky, will serve 8 years and a congress and senate that can last decades. Where is the balance there?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Akvod on 13 January 2010
mrstickball said:
Akvod said:
Zucas said:
Akvod said:
Zucas said:
Why aren't they listening to the people? Because the people can't be trusted. This is a republic not a democracy similar to that of the Greek city-states. If the founding fathers had ever thought the masses would know what was right for the nation as a whole they would have made a pure democracy or a republic where the people elect all decisions. Instead our Constitution tries every way possible to keep the masses from deciding things in the country, although a lot of that has been overturned.

As Madison implied in Federalist #10, the masses can't be left to decide for the entire nation, or what he coined as the violence of factions. People can be easily manipulated and controlled and therefore they shouldn't be paid attention too.


Now to this exact position, who knows if the people are right. All I know, James Madison would say who really gives a shit. How many of those people actually came to that decision with anyone but their own self-interests at mind. Maybe a few, a dozen, ONE.

This all goes back to the trustee versus delegate argument. In a republic, should the representatives do exactly what the populous that voted them in wants (delegate) or were they voted in to use their best judgment on decisions (trustee). I think in this country we seem to see it more as a delegate position, but I doubt the founding fathers would have seen that... or maybe they would have if only the RIGHT people were voting.

So when discussing this, I obviously don't agree with most of the bill. However, I also don't think the masses should be the deciding factor because I don't think any of them have intentions beyond self-interest. Hell if I were a poltician, despite being a strong libertarian, I'm not going to let the violence of factions affect my decision. I would make a decisions that is in the best interest of preserving rights and maintaining the well-being of the nation and its citizens.

I guess one of the major flaws of a democratic government is how involved the people become. If they aren't well educated or knowledgeable in the matters then they aren't capable of running a government. Same problem comes with a republic as if they aren't capable of making the decisions how are they capable of choosing the right people to run the government (which we all know isn't done well). Guess the only way a democracy can work is the idea of checks and balances not on just government but the people's involvement as well. Despite most Americans being manipulated to think democracy is the greatest thing ever, its quite obvious it has numerous flaws that we have to take into account just like any other form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias

?

O.o

Sound a bit scary there.

In my political theory class I took,  I actually read Gorgias from Plato.  Of course Socrates completely owned him in the story and he even began to change his opinion, but man someone who prides themselves in rhetoric rather than justice is quite disturbing.  Would always say in the story how he could convince someone over a doctor about such things which is just disturbing.  Was always meant to be a knock at politicians who instead of having justice at heart only sought to deceive.  Socrates was always concerned with the bettering of the human soul while he saw the rest concerned with obtaining power, or in this case power through manipulation and deception.  Sounds very familiar to politicians nowadays and the factions Madison had talked about. 

Yeah, but it sounded like Socrates wanted a Technocracy or a Dictatorship. Which is why I had that little diagram of transition of governments.

You have a dictator (a capable one man leader), but eventually it'll turn into an Monarchy (Caesar->Augustus->Whole line of emperors) and stagnate.

You have Democracy, you'll have sophists take advantage of them. Have representatives, it's just a transition of sophist->Representative.

I think it's like with Thucydides and Histories of Peloponesian Wars. Everyone is just out there for themselves. The Demos, the Sophists, the leaders, etc. You'll have a confederation, but it'll break up since people won't be willing to defend other people's homes if their own got ravaged. You'll have cities spared or massacred, all so... chaoticly? Unstablly? Decided based on profit.

 

If you can read it on Google books or whatever, Cleon and whoever he debated is the greatest example. Cleon is the asshole asking for an extermination of a city, but the guy who's fighting him sounds even MORE scarier, because of how amoral he is.

...

 

Yeah, I rambled. Pretty much, every argument for government sounds bad IMHO. Anarchy sounds like shit.

We should all just learn to cope with imperfection.

I think the real problem with the American federal republic is the limit of government. That is, that if all government is bad, then we must limit the term and scope of government. Unfortunately, we have a president that, if lucky, will serve 8 years and a congress and senate that can last decades. Where is the balance there?

Yeah, but look at how much wasted time and money is spent on elections. How can the government enact long term plans that won't be popular? They'll be constantly focused on the reelection than their job.



mrstickball on 13 January 2010
Akvod said:
mrstickball said:
Akvod said:
Zucas said:
Akvod said:
Zucas said:
Why aren't they listening to the people? Because the people can't be trusted. This is a republic not a democracy similar to that of the Greek city-states. If the founding fathers had ever thought the masses would know what was right for the nation as a whole they would have made a pure democracy or a republic where the people elect all decisions. Instead our Constitution tries every way possible to keep the masses from deciding things in the country, although a lot of that has been overturned.

As Madison implied in Federalist #10, the masses can't be left to decide for the entire nation, or what he coined as the violence of factions. People can be easily manipulated and controlled and therefore they shouldn't be paid attention too.


Now to this exact position, who knows if the people are right. All I know, James Madison would say who really gives a shit. How many of those people actually came to that decision with anyone but their own self-interests at mind. Maybe a few, a dozen, ONE.

This all goes back to the trustee versus delegate argument. In a republic, should the representatives do exactly what the populous that voted them in wants (delegate) or were they voted in to use their best judgment on decisions (trustee). I think in this country we seem to see it more as a delegate position, but I doubt the founding fathers would have seen that... or maybe they would have if only the RIGHT people were voting.

So when discussing this, I obviously don't agree with most of the bill. However, I also don't think the masses should be the deciding factor because I don't think any of them have intentions beyond self-interest. Hell if I were a poltician, despite being a strong libertarian, I'm not going to let the violence of factions affect my decision. I would make a decisions that is in the best interest of preserving rights and maintaining the well-being of the nation and its citizens.

I guess one of the major flaws of a democratic government is how involved the people become. If they aren't well educated or knowledgeable in the matters then they aren't capable of running a government. Same problem comes with a republic as if they aren't capable of making the decisions how are they capable of choosing the right people to run the government (which we all know isn't done well). Guess the only way a democracy can work is the idea of checks and balances not on just government but the people's involvement as well. Despite most Americans being manipulated to think democracy is the greatest thing ever, its quite obvious it has numerous flaws that we have to take into account just like any other form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias

?

O.o

Sound a bit scary there.

In my political theory class I took,  I actually read Gorgias from Plato.  Of course Socrates completely owned him in the story and he even began to change his opinion, but man someone who prides themselves in rhetoric rather than justice is quite disturbing.  Would always say in the story how he could convince someone over a doctor about such things which is just disturbing.  Was always meant to be a knock at politicians who instead of having justice at heart only sought to deceive.  Socrates was always concerned with the bettering of the human soul while he saw the rest concerned with obtaining power, or in this case power through manipulation and deception.  Sounds very familiar to politicians nowadays and the factions Madison had talked about. 

Yeah, but it sounded like Socrates wanted a Technocracy or a Dictatorship. Which is why I had that little diagram of transition of governments.

You have a dictator (a capable one man leader), but eventually it'll turn into an Monarchy (Caesar->Augustus->Whole line of emperors) and stagnate.

You have Democracy, you'll have sophists take advantage of them. Have representatives, it's just a transition of sophist->Representative.

I think it's like with Thucydides and Histories of Peloponesian Wars. Everyone is just out there for themselves. The Demos, the Sophists, the leaders, etc. You'll have a confederation, but it'll break up since people won't be willing to defend other people's homes if their own got ravaged. You'll have cities spared or massacred, all so... chaoticly? Unstablly? Decided based on profit.

 

If you can read it on Google books or whatever, Cleon and whoever he debated is the greatest example. Cleon is the asshole asking for an extermination of a city, but the guy who's fighting him sounds even MORE scarier, because of how amoral he is.

...

 

Yeah, I rambled. Pretty much, every argument for government sounds bad IMHO. Anarchy sounds like shit.

We should all just learn to cope with imperfection.

I think the real problem with the American federal republic is the limit of government. That is, that if all government is bad, then we must limit the term and scope of government. Unfortunately, we have a president that, if lucky, will serve 8 years and a congress and senate that can last decades. Where is the balance there?

Yeah, but look at how much wasted time and money is spent on elections. How can the government enact long term plans that won't be popular? They'll be constantly focused on the reelection than their job.

Then limit them to 1 term ala Switzerland. That way, no one worries. Even then, if you have longer terms, politicians still worry about getting re-elected.

In all actuality, the cost to hold an election isn't very expensive. For example, Hawaii is holding a special election which is expected to cost just $1 million USD. Given the fact the federal budget is 3,000,000 times that amount, I think that is not a very large amount of money.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Chairman-Mao on 13 January 2010
famousringo said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Socialized health care isn't as good as people think. I'm Canadian and we have it. Our taxes are much higher and if you don't get injured then you're paying higher taxes for nothing.

Did you know that the United States spends more government money as a share of GDP on health than Canada does? The average Canadian isn't actually paying more taxes for health care than the average American does. You or your employer might be paying less in premiums, though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_exp_pub_of_gdp-health-expenditure-public-of-gdp

Really? That seems odd. Where's the money going then if the US doesn't have free health care?



famousringo on 14 January 2010
Chairman-Mao said:
famousringo said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Socialized health care isn't as good as people think. I'm Canadian and we have it. Our taxes are much higher and if you don't get injured then you're paying higher taxes for nothing.

Did you know that the United States spends more government money as a share of GDP on health than Canada does? The average Canadian isn't actually paying more taxes for health care than the average American does. You or your employer might be paying less in premiums, though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_exp_pub_of_gdp-health-expenditure-public-of-gdp

Really? That seems odd. Where's the money going then if the US doesn't have free health care?

US health care costs are out of control, and it means that even though public health programs only cover part of the American population, public and private insurers alike end up paying more. There are so many reasons why that I wouldn't even dare to suggest that I know which is the most important.

For starters, the cost of administration in the US is roughly twice as high as it is in Canada as a share of all health spending. One of the perks of a single-payer system is that there's a lot less paper to push around. Patients simply present their health card and walk on in.

Another reason is that drug prices are less controlled in the US and drug patents are stronger. This is why so many Americans import drugs from Canada. The counter argument is that more money for drug companies means more drug reasearch, although the value of the tradeoff is debatable: About half of medical research spending in the US is public money.

Some say that the threat of litigation encourages doctors to overtreat patients rather than risk a malpractice suit, consuming far more labour, equipment and material than ought to be necessary.

I'm sure there are quite a few other reasons that aren't off the top of my head. The bottom line is that the structure of the US health system is so rotten that it doesn't really have the advantages of a free market system or a socialized system. The size of the gap between US health spending as a share of GDP and that of the second highest OECD country is about the same size as US military spending.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

mrstickball on 14 January 2010
Chairman-Mao said:
famousringo said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Socialized health care isn't as good as people think. I'm Canadian and we have it. Our taxes are much higher and if you don't get injured then you're paying higher taxes for nothing.

Did you know that the United States spends more government money as a share of GDP on health than Canada does? The average Canadian isn't actually paying more taxes for health care than the average American does. You or your employer might be paying less in premiums, though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_exp_pub_of_gdp-health-expenditure-public-of-gdp

Really? That seems odd. Where's the money going then if the US doesn't have free health care?

Lets not forget:

  • No national competition for insurance prices (insurance companies cannot compete with nation-wide policies, only state level)
  • US doctors and nurses are paid more than any other country
  • US government spends 88% more per insurer than private insurers
  • Lifestyle issues (Americans are more obese and sedintary than other countries)
  • The cost to practice medicine is much, MUCH costlier in the US than any other country. It costs >$100,000 for a medical degree in the US...Factor that into doctors administering care.

Its outside of the major points, but I wonder how much worse off Americans are for geriatric care than other nations. I'd dare say that is what is killing American costs - we keep a lot of old, dying people in nursing homes, keeping them barely alive to funnel their social security $$$ from them. Most nursing homes are ~$3000/mo. I'd think that insurance companies get raked over the coals for that.

And having said that, I worked in the medical field as a lowly transportation officer. The amount of rules, regulations and paperwork to transport someone from a nursing home to a medical facility for a simple checkup is INSANE. And insanely expensive. It costed patients $100 for a simple 15-minute trip from a nursing home to a medical facility, all the while I, the driver, was paid $8/hr. So there is certainly something in the system that kills the costs - and it wasn't wages.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

HappySqurriel on 14 January 2010

It’s a matter of trust. Most good leaders will demonstrate that they can repeatedly make good decisions by constantly handling small issues well before they move onto trying to solve big difficult problems; in doing so they build trust with the people they’re leading, and will remain respected even when the big problems don’t turn out well. The current government has not done that, and has repeatedly created bad legislation (even if you support the purpose) with all of their major initiatives so far (Bank/Auto-Bailout, Stimulus Package) and now want to make a major change to an industry that impacts people in a very real way. Without having the trust of the people it will be nearly impossible for the democrats to maintain their strong majority in the house; and may even stop controlling either the house or the senate.



Lostplanet22 on 14 January 2010

Hey, the people don't want to pay taxes why is the congress not listening :(.