East Mets West 139

Plurk

Share this

Tom and Roger (with special guest correspondent Josh Lawrence) go long with their election special. They even call the election two days in advance. Plus solve the energy crisis thanks to Sean.

Listen to the podcast at this link: http://ia311217.us.archive.org/1/items/EastMeetsWest139/eastmeetswest139.mp3

Bill

Tom & Roger,

Love the podcast…please, next time turn off the reverb effect on Josh’s mic. The “voice from god” sound was funny at first but then got to be grating.

I look forward to your post-election analysis! Tom & Roger for 2012. :)

Take care,
Bill
Bill

Tom & Roger,

Love the podcast…please, next time turn off the reverb effect on Josh’s mic. The “voice from god” sound was funny at first but then got to be grating.

I look forward to your post-election analysis! Tom & Roger for 2012. :)

Take care,
Bill
http://finucaner.wordpress.com/ Richard Finucane

One poll to rule them all!
http://finucaner.wordpress.com/ Richard Finucane

One poll to rule them all!
Chris S.

I’m counting the hours until the election is over, if for no other reason than I’ll stop getting, literally, 4-6 phone calls a day from either robocalls or party deadheads trying to sway my vote. Nothing is worse this time of year than living in a swing state. I think Obama pulls it out by 3-4%, and overwhelmingly by electoral vote. My only solace is that the establishment is overturned in classic democratic fashion, and those of us in the evil Empire now become the Rebel Alliance, and we can now snipe at the establishment for a change(there’s a BBC “Coupling” episode that makes fun of this concept with Labor winning the Election, and the Tories becoming the minority).
Chris S.

I’m counting the hours until the election is over, if for no other reason than I’ll stop getting, literally, 4-6 phone calls a day from either robocalls or party deadheads trying to sway my vote. Nothing is worse this time of year than living in a swing state. I think Obama pulls it out by 3-4%, and overwhelmingly by electoral vote. My only solace is that the establishment is overturned in classic democratic fashion, and those of us in the evil Empire now become the Rebel Alliance, and we can now snipe at the establishment for a change(there’s a BBC “Coupling” episode that makes fun of this concept with Labor winning the Election, and the Tories becoming the minority).
Matthew

Here is an interesting idea that was noted in a lecture series that Mr Rupert Murdoch does and while it is concerning Australia I think there is interesting parallels. One of the most interesting things is that all western countries need to modernize and fund properly their education system. He notes the appalling state the public school system is in Australia (but then softens the blow by stating its the same in all other western countries) and how it is required for all for a competitive economy and citizenry. I note that Mr Murdoch is talking about Public education and not a user pays system and I don’t think anyone would call good old Rupert a socialist. I think he saw it was giving everyone a chance to advance and have a go at succeeding in whoever the person defined success.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/

I think this is where my post that you guys read (thanks its nice to be appreciated) is where my post did not do the program justice in that when they spoke of consumers it was speaking of a situation where education (a right of a citizen as it is required for anyone to properly carry out their responsibilities of a citizen) is now seen as an “investment” and so is user pays. I am not talking about tertiary education but more secondary education where if you go to a public school in a poor neighborhood its a miracle is you get one and miracles do happen.

lighter note, no takers for my idea of having argueCon in Asia or even the pacific islands its cheaper than the US? I would contribute my share!?! pretty please :P
Matthew

Here is an interesting idea that was noted in a lecture series that Mr Rupert Murdoch does and while it is concerning Australia I think there is interesting parallels. One of the most interesting things is that all western countries need to modernize and fund properly their education system. He notes the appalling state the public school system is in Australia (but then softens the blow by stating its the same in all other western countries) and how it is required for all for a competitive economy and citizenry. I note that Mr Murdoch is talking about Public education and not a user pays system and I don’t think anyone would call good old Rupert a socialist. I think he saw it was giving everyone a chance to advance and have a go at succeeding in whoever the person defined success.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/

I think this is where my post that you guys read (thanks its nice to be appreciated) is where my post did not do the program justice in that when they spoke of consumers it was speaking of a situation where education (a right of a citizen as it is required for anyone to properly carry out their responsibilities of a citizen) is now seen as an “investment” and so is user pays. I am not talking about tertiary education but more secondary education where if you go to a public school in a poor neighborhood its a miracle is you get one and miracles do happen.

lighter note, no takers for my idea of having argueCon in Asia or even the pacific islands its cheaper than the US? I would contribute my share!?! pretty please :P
Theowne

Tom,

What were you going on about when you were discussing immigrants, like Asians and Indians, “moving up”? According to the latest census, Indians and Japanese were the 2nd and 3rd richest demographics in America, after the Jews, and Koreans, Chinese and Middle-Eastern immigrants were all above the national average as well.

In fact, I think all immigrants from the Asian continent have positive socioeconomic status, except for refugees.

The picture of the Korean or Indian convenience store owner is outdated, I think.
Theowne

Tom,

What were you going on about when you were discussing immigrants, like Asians and Indians, “moving up”? According to the latest census, Indians and Japanese were the 2nd and 3rd richest demographics in America, after the Jews, and Koreans, Chinese and Middle-Eastern immigrants were all above the national average as well.

In fact, I think all immigrants from the Asian continent have positive socioeconomic status, except for refugees.

The picture of the Korean or Indian convenience store owner is outdated, I think.
Vance

Chris S., I agree entirely. Another maxim of British politics is that the best seat in the House of Commons is Leader of the Opposition. You get to point out the miscues and bad decisions without actually having to DO anything. :0)

Don’t fool yourself, though. The democrats will simply blame all of their failures on the “mess” they inherited, forgetting the idea that, at least economically, it takes up to 10 years for policies to impact the economy, so we are actually reaping Clinton-era decisions.

But I agree, Viva la Resistance!
Vance

Chris S., I agree entirely. Another maxim of British politics is that the best seat in the House of Commons is Leader of the Opposition. You get to point out the miscues and bad decisions without actually having to DO anything. :0)

Don’t fool yourself, though. The democrats will simply blame all of their failures on the “mess” they inherited, forgetting the idea that, at least economically, it takes up to 10 years for policies to impact the economy, so we are actually reaping Clinton-era decisions.

But I agree, Viva la Resistance!
http://sannakji.org/ San

I demand more Josh. MORE!
http://sannakji.org San

I demand more Josh. MORE!
http://www.rightsideoftech.com/ Russ

In response to Matthew’s comments from show 138. I don’t think the American dream is gone. The American dream has nothing to do about income redistribution. It’s about going out there, working hard and creating something of value. Every day people of limited means work hard and pull themselves out of their situation. They do this by believing in themselves. No government program has created wealth and I think our welfare system is an example of how it can actually discourage achievement. Instead we should look for ways to get government out of businesses way and let them run with it. Does this mean government has no role, no. But they should be there to make sure every thing is transparent and honest. Not to create regulatory barriers preventing competition and innovation.
http://www.rightsideoftech.com Russ

In response to Matthew’s comments from show 138. I don’t think the American dream is gone. The American dream has nothing to do about income redistribution. It’s about going out there, working hard and creating something of value. Every day people of limited means work hard and pull themselves out of their situation. They do this by believing in themselves. No government program has created wealth and I think our welfare system is an example of how it can actually discourage achievement. Instead we should look for ways to get government out of businesses way and let them run with it. Does this mean government has no role, no. But they should be there to make sure every thing is transparent and honest. Not to create regulatory barriers preventing competition and innovation.
http://www.rightsideoftech.com/ Russ

Tom:

Perhaps the reason so many distrust ACORN is they are under indictment all over the place. 7-10 states as I understand. A Google search will provide the direct answers. Also we are starting to see people voting in multiple states. These are largely left wing organizations voting in key battle grounds like NC and OH.
http://www.rightsideoftech.com Russ

Tom:

Perhaps the reason so many distrust ACORN is they are under indictment all over the place. 7-10 states as I understand. A Google search will provide the direct answers. Also we are starting to see people voting in multiple states. These are largely left wing organizations voting in key battle grounds like NC and OH.
Matthew

Russ I agree with you that hard work should be rewarded but the question is should the government be there to give each citizen the tools to be the best they can be and also to fulfill their responsibilities. That is an education that, if you studied hard could lead somewhere as opposed to a public school in a poor neighborhood; where there is no equipment, no books and the kids are not attentive and so muck up as they have not had any breakfast or lunch (as their parents won’t/can’t feed them).

Or a medical system that does not bankrupt people if their condition is not covered by ruthless insurance companies.

As an aside when speaking of ruthless insurance companies I learned a new concept “Organization as weapon” where financial services companies are organized to commit white collar crime. Mind you there is people that state there is no such thing as white collar crime (they are called fraud minimalists). Before you scoff at the concept think about all the scandals that have occurred: savings and loan, Long Term Capital, the dot com bubble, and the current financial crisis and ask why it occurs so regularly.

Back to topic I think business is best for society where it is a competitive market and I would agree that government should only be involved to the extent of safety and ensuring a competitive market (e.g. making sure no one company buys all its competitors) and I do agree there is too much interference where there is a competitive market. An example is agriculture with the appallingly large use of subsidies throughout the western countries.

The issue is that there is a lot of areas where there is extremely high barriers of entry into a market (e.g. electricity distribution, that is the wiring and the substations and the poles, telecommunications in the traditional sense) or where there is a free rider situation occuring (e.g. environmental goods, that is clean air, water) where “letting business do its thing” will lead to outcomes that is bad for society. What I mean is that business either prices it too high (with monopolistic profit) or too low (where it free rides and does not pay for it and so values it as nil).

What do you think Russ on what I have written?
Matthew

Russ I agree with you that hard work should be rewarded but the question is should the government be there to give each citizen the tools to be the best they can be and also to fulfill their responsibilities. That is an education that, if you studied hard could lead somewhere as opposed to a public school in a poor neighborhood; where there is no equipment, no books and the kids are not attentive and so muck up as they have not had any breakfast or lunch (as their parents won’t/can’t feed them).

Or a medical system that does not bankrupt people if their condition is not covered by ruthless insurance companies.

As an aside when speaking of ruthless insurance companies I learned a new concept “Organization as weapon” where financial services companies are organized to commit white collar crime. Mind you there is people that state there is no such thing as white collar crime (they are called fraud minimalists). Before you scoff at the concept think about all the scandals that have occurred: savings and loan, Long Term Capital, the dot com bubble, and the current financial crisis and ask why it occurs so regularly.

Back to topic I think business is best for society where it is a competitive market and I would agree that government should only be involved to the extent of safety and ensuring a competitive market (e.g. making sure no one company buys all its competitors) and I do agree there is too much interference where there is a competitive market. An example is agriculture with the appallingly large use of subsidies throughout the western countries.

The issue is that there is a lot of areas where there is extremely high barriers of entry into a market (e.g. electricity distribution, that is the wiring and the substations and the poles, telecommunications in the traditional sense) or where there is a free rider situation occuring (e.g. environmental goods, that is clean air, water) where “letting business do its thing” will lead to outcomes that is bad for society. What I mean is that business either prices it too high (with monopolistic profit) or too low (where it free rides and does not pay for it and so values it as nil).

What do you think Russ on what I have written?
http://www.rightsideoftech.com/?p=370 Russ

Matthew:

I don’t disagree we need a young people educated up to high school. I personally favor choice in education to allow those students in poor school districts to find better schooling. Look at Washington DC we spend enormous amounts of money and generally the schools are a failure. Why do we continually support failing schools with more money? Feeding students who truly come from homes so impoverished they cannot feed their children is fair. However we continually see these social programs expanded over and over again to encompass more people. This is what I oppose.

You mention medical costs. Why don’t we free up the market to allow for more creative ways to handle these costs. How about placing caps on medical malpractice awards? Too often the solution is seen a how can government be the provider. I oppose this.

Regulation like that given to the telecommunication and cable industries have proved to protect these companies in their poor behavior. If we opened them up to greater competition and removed the protections that they have we will see lower prices, higher levels of service and innovation. Government regulation stifles innovation nearly every time it is applied.
http://www.rightsideoftech.com/?p=370 Russ

Matthew:

I don’t disagree we need a young people educated up to high school. I personally favor choice in education to allow those students in poor school districts to find better schooling. Look at Washington DC we spend enormous amounts of money and generally the schools are a failure. Why do we continually support failing schools with more money? Feeding students who truly come from homes so impoverished they cannot feed their children is fair. However we continually see these social programs expanded over and over again to encompass more people. This is what I oppose.

You mention medical costs. Why don’t we free up the market to allow for more creative ways to handle these costs. How about placing caps on medical malpractice awards? Too often the solution is seen a how can government be the provider. I oppose this.

Regulation like that given to the telecommunication and cable industries have proved to protect these companies in their poor behavior. If we opened them up to greater competition and removed the protections that they have we will see lower prices, higher levels of service and innovation. Government regulation stifles innovation nearly every time it is applied.
Kelly

I just want to say that I am very happy with Obama winning tonight. I did end up voting for McKinney. There were several issue Obama never addressed and McKinney did on Democracy NOW! I had hoped Obama would have made us a promise to reverse or undo many of Bush’s wrong doings.

I look forward to advancing our world after 8 years of Big Giant Steps Backwards!!!

Kelly
Kelly

I just want to say that I am very happy with Obama winning tonight. I did end up voting for McKinney. There were several issue Obama never addressed and McKinney did on Democracy NOW! I had hoped Obama would have made us a promise to reverse or undo many of Bush’s wrong doings.

I look forward to advancing our world after 8 years of Big Giant Steps Backwards!!!

Kelly
http://www.rightsideoftech.com/?p=370 Russ

With Obama’s win comes higher taxes and slower job growth. However now the Dems own it all and get to take all the blame for their poor policies.
http://www.rightsideoftech.com/?p=370 Russ

With Obama’s win comes higher taxes and slower job growth. However now the Dems own it all and get to take all the blame for their poor policies.
Vance

My concern is not with the economy, which will either correct or not, regardless of who is in office (it did not get this way because of Bush, and will not be greatly impacted by who is in office), but with foreign relations. I am worried about whether Obama has what it takes to take strong and decisive positions and actions against those who wish us harm and (equally important) whether those who wish us harm will THINK he will take decisive action if needed.

What happens if Iran moves forward aggressively with nukes? What if we are now struck again with a major terrorist attack on US soil? Will Obama weaken our support for Israel?

Very nervous about all of that.
Vance

My concern is not with the economy, which will either correct or not, regardless of who is in office (it did not get this way because of Bush, and will not be greatly impacted by who is in office), but with foreign relations. I am worried about whether Obama has what it takes to take strong and decisive positions and actions against those who wish us harm and (equally important) whether those who wish us harm will THINK he will take decisive action if needed.

What happens if Iran moves forward aggressively with nukes? What if we are now struck again with a major terrorist attack on US soil? Will Obama weaken our support for Israel?

Very nervous about all of that.
techpriest

Regardless of how the Democratic Administration of 09 onwards, This is a Historic Moment. This will go down in history as the moment that the western world has fought and WON against racism. If you don’t believe me…take a look at the video of the White-House being surrounded at 2AM by a crowd of every creed, race and colour cheering at the Democratic Victory. If Fireworks were legal on that side of the pond…i can imagine they would have been used.
techpriest

Regardless of how the Democratic Administration of 09 onwards, This is a Historic Moment. This will go down in history as the moment that the western world has fought and WON against racism. If you don’t believe me…take a look at the video of the White-House being surrounded at 2AM by a crowd of every creed, race and colour cheering at the Democratic Victory. If Fireworks were legal on that side of the pond…i can imagine they would have been used.
Troy

Have you guys seen this page? http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com

What do you think accounts for the landslide results? Does the world just hates Republicans?
Troy

Have you guys seen this page? http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com

What do you think accounts for the landslide results? Does the world just hates Republicans?
SoCalJess

Enjoying the exchange between Matthew & Russ! If ArgueCon should ever happen, Matthew & Tom should tag team against Roger & Russ. Or the other way around – whichever works.

After the high from Obama being elected, I’m feeling the relief that Palin will be no where near D.C. As an Obama-voting Republican, I hope the R-Party will now focus more on its progressive-thinking moderates rather than beckoning to the militant social conservatives. But then when money talks…..

So, Tom & Roger – did either of you vote yes on Prop K in Bay Area?
SoCalJess

Enjoying the exchange between Matthew & Russ! If ArgueCon should ever happen, Matthew & Tom should tag team against Roger & Russ. Or the other way around â€“ whichever works.

After the high from Obama being elected, Iâ€™m feeling the relief that Palin will be no where near D.C. As an Obama-voting Republican, I hope the R-Party will now focus more on its progressive-thinking moderates rather than beckoning to the militant social conservatives. But then when money talksâ€¦..

So, Tom & Roger â€“ did either of you vote yes on Prop K in Bay Area?
http://www.rightsideoftech.com/ Russ

SoCalJess,

I wish the Republicans would get back to the focus they had when Newt led the Republicans to take over the House and Senate. Republicans were focused and had specific economic issues as well as a focus on a smaller government. While McCain wasn’t the best option he was the viable option.
http://www.rightsideoftech.com Russ

SoCalJess,

I wish the Republicans would get back to the focus they had when Newt led the Republicans to take over the House and Senate. Republicans were focused and had specific economic issues as well as a focus on a smaller government. While McCain wasn’t the best option he was the viable option.
Edward

Thank you Tom, what we need is for the country and the government to read that little document called the Constitution and do things the way it was originally set up. The people who wrote it were not stupid and thought it through. Once again the mob mentality rears its ugly head. This election was decided not so much on what the platforms and politics of the candidated were, but on charisma and charm. Alot of what you have been lamenting about the way our election processes work is lamenting a system that has been perverted. And some of the things that you would like too see changed are the way things were oridinally set forth in the constitution. The way we are suppossed to pic our representatives is actually the way you have said you would like it to be, we are only supposed to directly vote for our representative in the house, not senators and not the president. And if you think about it, if we voted the way it was originally intended, poeople would concentrate more on their regional representatives and it would more than likely removce the 2 party system that we have now. Just remember mobs usually end up not doing a whole lot of good, many bad regimes have been put in power by mobs, and if the electoral college system is removed as opposed to being used the way intended, we may end up in a very bad spot, its always the consequenses you don’t consider that end up hurting you in the future. Many people do not look to the future too consider what may happen they are too wrapped up in the near term to think many decisions through. History should teach us that if you have alot of people get behind the charismatic leader, it usually end poorly. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Edward

Thank you Tom, what we need is for the country and the government to read that little document called the Constitution and do things the way it was originally set up. The people who wrote it were not stupid and thought it through. Once again the mob mentality rears its ugly head. This election was decided not so much on what the platforms and politics of the candidated were, but on charisma and charm. Alot of what you have been lamenting about the way our election processes work is lamenting a system that has been perverted. And some of the things that you would like too see changed are the way things were oridinally set forth in the constitution. The way we are suppossed to pic our representatives is actually the way you have said you would like it to be, we are only supposed to directly vote for our representative in the house, not senators and not the president. And if you think about it, if we voted the way it was originally intended, poeople would concentrate more on their regional representatives and it would more than likely removce the 2 party system that we have now. Just remember mobs usually end up not doing a whole lot of good, many bad regimes have been put in power by mobs, and if the electoral college system is removed as opposed to being used the way intended, we may end up in a very bad spot, its always the consequenses you don’t consider that end up hurting you in the future. Many people do not look to the future too consider what may happen they are too wrapped up in the near term to think many decisions through. History should teach us that if you have alot of people get behind the charismatic leader, it usually end poorly. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Matthew

Russ I think we are coming to the same ideal but from differing methods. I believe that all programs, social or otherwise need to have key performance indicators and a thorough review as stated in the program brief and periodic reviews thereafter if it is seen to be working.

I personally think that government is the best method of purchasing health care for medical health coverage that actually covers the whole population. This is borne out by the fact that no country has been able to successfully do it any other way. In regards to the extra tax you have to pay think of it this way; if you got insurance you are doing the same risk pooling method that insurance companies do but without the extra expense of the profit they want and also the lack of purchasing muscle that comes with having to complete with other purchasers. Just think of your health insurance paid as a tax, work out the percentage of your income you pay to them and then work out if you a willing to pay the government that amount to provide it. Before people talk about a lack of innovation coming from a lack of rewarding the best remember that the other western countries provide excellent medical care and they have the government as the sole purchaser. I also note the point raised about insurance companies and the concept of “Organization as Weapon”.

Russ point in regards to regulation of cable and electricity companies is that the laws should be brought in to lower the naturally high barriers to entry to that market. Think of your anti trust laws as an example of the type of laws I am talking about or price regulation for natural monopolies so they don’t price gouge. I an amazed that people actually voted to give any company with a profit motive an artificial monopoly. All I am going to say I hope someone got paid handsomely for it as the rest of the public is paying for it. Can I make a point that the Republicans were not against regulating the financial services industry, an industry with a track record for scandal and government bail out and I am going to say there is a place for regulation. I was amazed to find out that you don’t have capitalisation ratio criteria for US investment banks and so they were able to leverage themselves to such an extent that they had to be bailed out. Personally I think that regulations that make sure that more than a handful of companies have 95% of the market share is good as it means there is a competitive market and if one or two become bankrupt there are other players that can take cover for them and not have it threaten the whole market/industry or even the economy!

In regards to companies with high barriers to entry there is no innovation and poor customer service as they know you have to come to them and so regulation should be used (where there is a natural monopoly or the potential of one forming) to maintain a competitive market.
Matthew

Russ I think we are coming to the same ideal but from differing methods. I believe that all programs, social or otherwise need to have key performance indicators and a thorough review as stated in the program brief and periodic reviews thereafter if it is seen to be working.

I personally think that government is the best method of purchasing health care for medical health coverage that actually covers the whole population. This is borne out by the fact that no country has been able to successfully do it any other way. In regards to the extra tax you have to pay think of it this way; if you got insurance you are doing the same risk pooling method that insurance companies do but without the extra expense of the profit they want and also the lack of purchasing muscle that comes with having to complete with other purchasers. Just think of your health insurance paid as a tax, work out the percentage of your income you pay to them and then work out if you a willing to pay the government that amount to provide it. Before people talk about a lack of innovation coming from a lack of rewarding the best remember that the other western countries provide excellent medical care and they have the government as the sole purchaser. I also note the point raised about insurance companies and the concept of “Organization as Weapon”.

Russ point in regards to regulation of cable and electricity companies is that the laws should be brought in to lower the naturally high barriers to entry to that market. Think of your anti trust laws as an example of the type of laws I am talking about or price regulation for natural monopolies so they don’t price gouge. I an amazed that people actually voted to give any company with a profit motive an artificial monopoly. All I am going to say I hope someone got paid handsomely for it as the rest of the public is paying for it. Can I make a point that the Republicans were not against regulating the financial services industry, an industry with a track record for scandal and government bail out and I am going to say there is a place for regulation. I was amazed to find out that you don’t have capitalisation ratio criteria for US investment banks and so they were able to leverage themselves to such an extent that they had to be bailed out. Personally I think that regulations that make sure that more than a handful of companies have 95% of the market share is good as it means there is a competitive market and if one or two become bankrupt there are other players that can take cover for them and not have it threaten the whole market/industry or even the economy!

In regards to companies with high barriers to entry there is no innovation and poor customer service as they know you have to come to them and so regulation should be used (where there is a natural monopoly or the potential of one forming) to maintain a competitive market.
Matthew

I think the Republicans should move from the party for the rich to the party that respected the dignity of People and that everyone should have a “fair go”. After all this was the party of President Lincoln and the party that was most for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (based on the percentage that voted for it).

Still no takers for AgueCon in a nice topical island??? :D
Matthew

I think the Republicans should move from the party for the rich to the party that respected the dignity of People and that everyone should have a “fair go”. After all this was the party of President Lincoln and the party that was most for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (based on the percentage that voted for it).

Still no takers for AgueCon in a nice topical island??? :D
techpriest

Russ and Matthews healthcare discussion is an interesting one. Being from the British side of the pond, health care is free, even the expensive kinds, such as hip-replacements, open-heart surgery and cancer treatement. Drugs and medicines are free when you are below 18 or above 65. Between that, all “prescriptions” are subsidised to a near flat rate, whether you need a relatively cheap asthma inhaler or a relatively expensive HIV anti-retroviral drug. In terms of eye-care, below the age of 16 (or 18 if you remain in full-time education), Glasses and Contact lenses are heavily subsidised. Britain is just one example of what occured in the post-war era, when many European countries implemented an NHS of some kind (National Health service), whereby Doctors, Nurses, supporting stuff, Physicians and patients are all funneled through the same government controlled system (of course “private practice” remains as a small side-niche). While some see this as bloated, and in some respects over-reaching, it is, from my point of view, one of the best ways to construct an all inclusive health service. REGARDLESS, of my background, age, wealth or education, if i were to suffer something that required Health treatment, i will get treatment that will go FAR further than anything the private sector is willing to offer. A good example is Orthopaedics (a bit inside baseball, but having a family of doctors tells you this stuff), an NHS will spend thousands of pounds on what each hopsital determines as the “best” all round implant for say…a hip riplacement, and where budget is actually not the most important factor. In the private sector, the quality of implant given is likely to be of a lower quality, as private companies often attempt to use more inexpensive implants to boost profit margins. An NHS also makes sure that poorer and less wealthy areas are not left out, as the system is self-balancing. In a wealthy area, where people pay for their “gold plated executive, every thing you can think off” private health insurance, the load is taken of the NHS, this “free space” can then be applied in a Less wealthy area where the load is greater.

On the other hand, i would like to learn how the Canadian healthcare system functions, because whereas the cry “Canada=Free Healthcare” is often used to promote the country, in truth, its’ not as free as it seems. Firstly, there is a national limit on the earnings of surgeons, so many surgeons train in the government backed surroundings of the Canadian system, then hop across the border and work in the US where they can earn far more, this effectively “creams off” the most excellent surgeons. Secondly, despite being closely tied to Britain until the Canada Act of 1982 (which severed all remaining legislative links to london, with the exception of the Canadian head of state), Canada actually never implemented an NHS, instead, the Government let the private sector take of the actual PROVSION of health-care, but payment is largely handled by the Government (if i’m misunderstanding the system, please correct me). Canada is also below the OECD average in that only 70% of a patients potential healthcare needs will be payed for by the state (contrastint to North Western Europe where the figure can reach the high 90%’s)

In my view, either system is effective, although the former is more inclusive, and better for the patient. But both are far better than having a system in which someone gets left behind.
techpriest

Russ and Matthews healthcare discussion is an interesting one. Being from the British side of the pond, health care is free, even the expensive kinds, such as hip-replacements, open-heart surgery and cancer treatement. Drugs and medicines are free when you are below 18 or above 65. Between that, all “prescriptions” are subsidised to a near flat rate, whether you need a relatively cheap asthma inhaler or a relatively expensive HIV anti-retroviral drug. In terms of eye-care, below the age of 16 (or 18 if you remain in full-time education), Glasses and Contact lenses are heavily subsidised. Britain is just one example of what occured in the post-war era, when many European countries implemented an NHS of some kind (National Health service), whereby Doctors, Nurses, supporting stuff, Physicians and patients are all funneled through the same government controlled system (of course “private practice” remains as a small side-niche). While some see this as bloated, and in some respects over-reaching, it is, from my point of view, one of the best ways to construct an all inclusive health service. REGARDLESS, of my background, age, wealth or education, if i were to suffer something that required Health treatment, i will get treatment that will go FAR further than anything the private sector is willing to offer. A good example is Orthopaedics (a bit inside baseball, but having a family of doctors tells you this stuff), an NHS will spend thousands of pounds on what each hopsital determines as the “best” all round implant for say…a hip riplacement, and where budget is actually not the most important factor. In the private sector, the quality of implant given is likely to be of a lower quality, as private companies often attempt to use more inexpensive implants to boost profit margins. An NHS also makes sure that poorer and less wealthy areas are not left out, as the system is self-balancing. In a wealthy area, where people pay for their “gold plated executive, every thing you can think off” private health insurance, the load is taken of the NHS, this “free space” can then be applied in a Less wealthy area where the load is greater.

On the other hand, i would like to learn how the Canadian healthcare system functions, because whereas the cry “Canada=Free Healthcare” is often used to promote the country, in truth, its’ not as free as it seems. Firstly, there is a national limit on the earnings of surgeons, so many surgeons train in the government backed surroundings of the Canadian system, then hop across the border and work in the US where they can earn far more, this effectively “creams off” the most excellent surgeons. Secondly, despite being closely tied to Britain until the Canada Act of 1982 (which severed all remaining legislative links to london, with the exception of the Canadian head of state), Canada actually never implemented an NHS, instead, the Government let the private sector take of the actual PROVSION of health-care, but payment is largely handled by the Government (if i’m misunderstanding the system, please correct me). Canada is also below the OECD average in that only 70% of a patients potential healthcare needs will be payed for by the state (contrastint to North Western Europe where the figure can reach the high 90%’s)

In my view, either system is effective, although the former is more inclusive, and better for the patient. But both are far better than having a system in which someone gets left behind.
Domino

Matthew said: “I personally think that government is the best method of purchasing health care for medical health coverage that actually covers the whole population.”

People overlook that there are forms of socialized medicine in the US. The VA which is one of the best run hospital systems in the world. There are the prison systems which California has one of the best in the US. So single payer systems are already in place. The hospital in the tv program ER which is the Cook County Hospital now called Strogier is largely taxed payer funded. You will never be turned away for the inability to pay. It is the best run hospital that I have ever worked for as an RN and it the hospital of my choice that I use personally. Because of its structure they only run tests and procedures that are necessary. I had a spinal cord injury which left me with a neurogenic bladder which leads me prone to urinary tract infections. The onset of these infections can be quite sudden which requires me to go to an emergency room. At Strogier I would’ve had a blood draw and urinalysis and given a tablet of Cipro with a prescription and be sent home. This is all that is necessary. I went to a different hospital on one occasion for the same thing and wound up being hospitalized for three days. I had five complete chemistry workups, kidney and bladder ultrasounds and a PET scan of my liver and four courses of IV antibiotics. This cost just under $10,000. This is what some hospitals have to do to stay afloat.

If the hospital submits a bill to an insurance company say one test costs the hospital the run and they charge 1200 for it the insurance company will go here is 35 bucks and this is no stretch. About a decade ago in Chicago hospitals were forced to reduce the amount of mammograms that they did for the reason that it cost more to turn the machine on than what the insurance companies were willing to pay out. Who really gets hurt are the uninsured people they have to bear this inflated cost to get anything out of the insurors.

With Medicare and Medicaid payments the federal government gives money to the state and the state pays out the doctors. Since the Reagan Revolution the federal government drags its feet as far as making payouts. The state is then saddled with making the payments which they usually wait until it in the millions and then they try to settle a dime on the dollar or put the medical group into a position where they would have to file costly lawsuit.

The Bush administration tried to shut down Medicare on two occasions. The first time they had partial success and the burden taking care of the mentally ill and Down syndrome fell to state taxpayers. The second attempt which failed was to cut doctors fees in half which would have killed Medicare. There are a lot of doctors that will not take Medicare patients as it is. With the fees cut in half no one would accept Medicare patients except places like Strogier.

There are certain instances where competition works in another instances where cooperation works. Healthcare is one of the latter.
Domino

Matthew said: “I personally think that government is the best method of purchasing health care for medical health coverage that actually covers the whole population.”

People overlook that there are forms of socialized medicine in the US. The VA which is one of the best run hospital systems in the world. There are the prison systems which California has one of the best in the US. So single payer systems are already in place. The hospital in the tv program ER which is the Cook County Hospital now called Strogier is largely taxed payer funded. You will never be turned away for the inability to pay. It is the best run hospital that I have ever worked for as an RN and it the hospital of my choice that I use personally. Because of its structure they only run tests and procedures that are necessary. I had a spinal cord injury which left me with a neurogenic bladder which leads me prone to urinary tract infections. The onset of these infections can be quite sudden which requires me to go to an emergency room. At Strogier I wouldâ€™ve had a blood draw and urinalysis and given a tablet of Cipro with a prescription and be sent home. This is all that is necessary. I went to a different hospital on one occasion for the same thing and wound up being hospitalized for three days. I had five complete chemistry workups, kidney and bladder ultrasounds and a PET scan of my liver and four courses of IV antibiotics. This cost just under $10,000. This is what some hospitals have to do to stay afloat.

If the hospital submits a bill to an insurance company say one test costs the hospital the run and they charge 1200 for it the insurance company will go here is 35 bucks and this is no stretch. About a decade ago in Chicago hospitals were forced to reduce the amount of mammograms that they did for the reason that it cost more to turn the machine on than what the insurance companies were willing to pay out. Who really gets hurt are the uninsured people they have to bear this inflated cost to get anything out of the insurors.

With Medicare and Medicaid payments the federal government gives money to the state and the state pays out the doctors. Since the Reagan Revolution the federal government drags its feet as far as making payouts. The state is then saddled with making the payments which they usually wait until it in the millions and then they try to settle a dime on the dollar or put the medical group into a position where they would have to file costly lawsuit.

The Bush administration tried to shut down Medicare on two occasions. The first time they had partial success and the burden taking care of the mentally ill and Down syndrome fell to state taxpayers. The second attempt which failed was to cut doctors fees in half which would have killed Medicare. There are a lot of doctors that will not take Medicare patients as it is. With the fees cut in half no one would accept Medicare patients except places like Strogier.

There are certain instances where competition works in another instances where cooperation works. Healthcare is one of the latter.