zafeone Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 pena nite shoulda grabbed trump by the dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Your onion rings look good. i stopped cooking them as I realised I was getting far too boozed to be playing with hot oil. They were good though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty_habiT Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Haha, probably a smart idea. I have a deep dish cast iron pot that I have full of peanut oil to fry things in. It works pretty well, but fortunately i do not use it that often. Recently I've been trying to perfect stuffed jalapenos. I'll make another thread for favorite recipes at some point soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Feb. 1, 2017 By George Friedman Immigration Chaos As long as illegal immigration is permitted, the foundations of American culture are at risk. Last week, President Donald Trump temporarily blocked both “immigrants and nonimmigrants” from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. From the beginning of his presidential campaign he has spoken at various times and in a variety of ways of taking a step like this. Having done it, the action created uproar in part because it was done without adequate preparation, and in larger part, because it was done at all. The mutual recriminations over this particular act are of little consequence. What is important is to try to understand why the immigration issue is so sensitive. The uproar over Trump’s action is merely one of many to come, which also will be of little consequence. Trump has pointed to two very different patterns. One is immigration to the U.S. by Muslims. The other is illegal Mexican immigration. Both resonated with Trump’s supporters. It is interesting to consider other immigration patterns that have not become an issue. One is immigration to the U.S. from India. The other is immigration from China and other parts of Asia. Both have been massive movements since about 1970, and both have had substantial social consequences. Protesters gather at the Los Angeles International Airport’s Tom Bradley Terminal to demonstrate against President Donald Trump’s executive order effectively banning citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. KONRAD FIEDLER/AFP/Getty Images Indian migration to the U.S. has been one of the most successful in American history in that it has been among the least disruptive, has generated minimal hostility and has been extraordinarily successful economically. Today, Indian-Americans are the wealthiest single ethnic group in the United States. They are hardly invisible, as they are present in all professions and as corporate executives. Chinese and East Asian immigration is more complex. Chinese immigrants began coming to the U.S. in the mid-19th century. They came as laborers supplied by Chinese contractors and were crucial in building American railroads alongside – and in competition with – Irish immigrants. The Chinese were exploited and brutalized and didn’t get citizenship. But after the 1970s, their story matched the Indians’ – the Chinese were not quite as wealthy, but they did well. About 3.7 million people of Indian descent live in the U.S., many of them second-generation immigrants. About 4 million people of Chinese descent live in the U.S., with somewhat more complex backgrounds. There also are 3.3 million Muslims and 35.8 million people of Mexican descent, including an estimated 5.2 million of the 11 million who are in the U.S. illegally, according to Pew Research Center. If there was a strain of intense, anti-immigrant or racist sentiment in the United States, it would be directed against Indians and Chinese just as much as Muslims and Mexicans. There would also be a persistent strain from previous Irish immigration in the 19th century, and of Italians, Jews and other Eastern and Southern Europeans who flooded into the United States between 1880 and 1920. To the extent that racism exists against any of these groups, the anti-immigration fervor is marginal; century-old immigrant cohorts have become mainstream. They are not the ones marginalized – their detractors are. It is the example of the Chinese and the Indians that blows up the theory that Americans have an overarching anti-immigrant sensibility that Trump is tapping into. It also raises serious doubts that Trump is anti-immigrant. I have searched and may have missed it, but I didn’t find that Trump made anti-Chinese or anti-Indian statements, as opposed to anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican statements. If it were classic anti-immigrant sentiment, the rage would be against Indian immigrants who have emerged as a powerful and wealthy ethnic group in a startlingly short time. But there is minimally detectable hostility toward them, which means that the immigration situation in the United States is far more complex than it seems. The issue is not whether Trump and his followers are generally anti-immigrant. The question is why they are so hostile toward Muslims, who roughly total the same number as the Chinese and Indians, and to Mexicans, who vastly outnumber these groups. I wish the explanation were more complex, but it is actually quite simple in both cases. The United States has been at war with Muslim groups since Sept. 11, 2001. When the U.S. has gone to war with foreign powers, there has been a surge of hostility toward immigrants from that foreign power’s country. During World War I, German immigrants in the United States who still spoke German came under suspicion and were pressured to adopt English. During World War II, Germans who had maintained close and cordial ties to Germany prior to the war were harassed, and in some cases, arrested under suspicion of espionage and subversion. Japanese citizens of the United States were arrested and sent to detention camps out of fear that they might be conducting espionage or sabotage for the Japanese. During the Cold War, post-war émigrés from Soviet satellite nations were distrusted by the FBI, which feared they were sent by the Soviets as spies and saboteurs. When there is war, there is suspicion of the enemy. When there is suspicion of the enemy, there is fear that émigrés might be in the United States on false pretenses. Historically, émigrés have been caught in the middle to some extent because their loyalty is questioned. In war, there is rage as the casualties mount, particularly if sabotage and terrorism are carried out in the homeland. This is hardly new or difficult to understand. If those of us old enough to recall the terror after 9/11 will do so, we can remember the fear and uncertainty not only about what comes next, but also whether the next terror team already was present in the United States. After 15 years of war and many Americans dead, this has congealed into a framework of distrust that may well go beyond the rational. The detention of the entire Japanese community was not rational. Nor was it something that cannot be understood. It is hard to calibrate what you ought to be afraid of in war, but you know that something dreadful might happen. Are all Muslims warriors against the United States? No. Do you know who is or isn’t? Also no. Wars, therefore, create fears. There is nothing new in the American fear of Muslims in the context of war. The Mexican situation is different. There was a war, but it was long ago, and fear of war is not the driving issue. Rather, the driving issue is illegal Mexican immigration. There is a great deal of homage paid to the rule of law. Congress passed a law specifying the mechanics of legal migration. Some 5 million Mexicans broke the law. Whether this has harmed the U.S. economy or not, the indifference to enforcing the law by people who are normally most insistent on the rule of law has created a sense of hypocrisy. At the same time that the middle and lower-middle classes feel as though their interests are being ignored, the presentation of illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants” reveals a linguistic maneuver. The “illegals” are transformed into the merely “undocumented,” implying a minor bureaucratic foul-up. The anger is not only directed at the Mexicans. It is part of the rage against those living in the bubble, who present themselves as humanitarians, but who will encounter the illegal aliens, if at all, as their servants. And rightly or wrongly, some suspect that open support for breaking the law is designed to bring cheap labor to support the lifestyles of the wealthy at the expense of the declining middle class. The fact that the well-to-do tend to be defenders of illegal aliens while also demanding the rule of law increases suspicions. There is a somewhat deeper layer. As long as illegal immigration is permitted, the foundations of American culture are at risk. It is not simply immigration, but the illegality that is frightening, because it not only can’t be controlled, but also the law is under attack by those who claim to uphold it. The fear that a person’s livelihood is being undermined and his cultural foundation is being overwhelmed creates deep fear of the intentions of the more powerful. The issue appears to have little to do with NAFTA and other economic concerns. The U.S. and China have equally intense economic issues, but there is minimal tension over Chinese immigration. The economic and immigration issues seem only tenuously connected. It is rare that an issue of such emotional impact as Muslims during a war with Muslims, or immigration in violation of the law, would not cause tension. As we saw with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Japanese, things that are obvious to those living decades later are not obvious at the time. Indeed, it is a failure of imagination to be unable to empathize with the fear felt after Pearl Harbor. In our time, the failure to empathize comes from those who feel immune to illegal immigration or the 15-year war. It is part of the growing fragmentation of American society that different classes and regions should experience these things so differently, and that each side has so little understanding of the other. It is the president’s job to bridge the gap. But regardless of his wishes, the president is trapped by the upwelling of feeling on questions of immigration by Muslims at a time of war, or the refusal of government at all levels to enforce the law. But what is not true is that this represents a generalized hostility to immigrants or even racism. If it did, the Indian and the Chinese immigration in recent generations would have encountered a very different greeting. This issue is about two groups. The response may well be extreme and clumsy. But after many years of ignoring the anxiety that both issues generated, or dismissing it as racism, it inevitably ratchets out of control. In fact, neither issue is mysterious, unprecedented or subject to cautious management, given the passions on all sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-says-trump-will-honour-refugee-deal-as-shorten-demands-answers-20170202-gu3x7e.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 That article is fair handed as far as I can see Hua Edit. That you posted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I've worked with George in the past, he's one of the most objective people I've come across and is one of my favourite contemporary writers. If you can find something that he wrote called "for the love of one's own" and "the Geopolitics of China: A great power enclosed" - they're not much longer than that article above - give them a read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-says-trump-will-honour-refugee-deal-as-shorten-demands-answers-20170202-gu3x7e.html This is really bad news. I understand that it's hard for Trump's political legitimacy given his campaign platform but it suggests that he's taking a very transactional approach to US relations. That will not go down well at all in Australia. We have accompanied the US into every major conflict since 1945, many that Australia had no direct interest in at all. We did to support the US led order and US prestige and primacy. The US is our major ally so we do everything we can to support it. Our interests are the same and our values are the same so we are like brothers. For some one like Trump to come in and utterly disregard all the blood we've shed together and the political capital Australia has spent around the world to support the United States is a disaster. It will make the US look arrogant, selfish and ignorant. Most of all it will make them look like untrustworthy partners that go from deal to deal trying to screw everyone for every little advantage they can get. Foreign relations are not business deals, trust and history matter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Looks like Trump has played knifey spoony before. Take that, Australia! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakfast menu Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 It will make the US look arrogant, selfish and ignorant. it's almost like we elected a narcissist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Trump today: "I just wanted to ask a question of you — why? 1,250… it could be 2,000 it could be more than that," Mr Trump said, referring to the number of refugees covered by the agreement. "I said 'why, why are we doing this. What is the purpose?' So we will see what happens. "We're tough. We have to be tough. We're taken advantage of by virtually every nation in the world. It's not going to happen any more" But the Washington Post claimed Mr Trump abruptly ended the phone call with Mr Turnbull regarding the deal, calling the conversation "the worst by far" in a day that included calls with a clutch of world leaders. Overnight Mr Trump said people should not be concerned about strongly-worded phone calls between world leaders like himself and Malcolm Turnbull. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-03/trump-defends-australia-comments-on-us-refugee-deal/8237640 Can't tell you how fucking angry this makes me as an Aussie and as a soldier. As an Aussie, we see Americans as loud and obnoxious but compete with them for that title. We look at America as wild and free, warts and all, but we compete with them for that highest standard. We see America and strength and the standard of justice, as imperfect and raw, and we compete with them on ideals of betterment and progress. We love America, we love Canada, we love Great Britain and we love New Zealand because we all share the values of the individual and of merit. America was not the first and it is not the best but it is the leader and we have followed it with blood, with treasure with mateship and with faith for 70 years. Our leaders can be fucking idiots too. We sold our values for votes in the early 2000s. Our leaders demonised Muslims a month before 9/11 to win elections (the Tampa Crisis for those who like to read). So this deal that Trump is fighting over comes from our own failure, we can't blame anyone but ourselves. But shit, we followed the US into Iraq, into Somalia and into Syria (Korea, Vietnam, etc. etc.). Sure, we actually wanted Vietnam more than you guys did at first and Korea was also a pretty big deal for US - Japan continued to scare us well after Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But we really didn't care about Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo and a whole lot of other shit we got messed up in. We did that stuff because we care about America. We like your leadership, we share the same interests and we support the values you fight for. We don't fight for you, we fight for us. Sometimes we ask for a favour, a bit of a hand, as all mates do. We've actually asked a couple of times - Indonesia in the 60s and East Timor in the 90s. Both times you've told us to fuck off (in Timor we got the minimum, nobody was prepared to die with us except the kiwis). Now we're being humiliated for a couple of genuine asylum seekers (we've already extreme vetted them and then imprisoned them - plus, there is 1200 MAXIMUM. Not thousands and there are no more to follow, it's a one off "leg up" for some mates that have always been there for you). I shit you not, this means a fucking massive amount to the average bloke on the street. This is headline all over the country and it will not go away. IF the current leadership takes the "what have you ever done for me" approach, it will be over. Yes, we need a great power partner to ensure our security but there is no sense in paying for a rip off. IT makes more sense to go it alone (or eventually go with Asia) than to pay to a leader that will through you under the bus for the next election. Think about this: Japan is watching Great Britain is watching South Korea is watcthin Thailand is watching Germany is watching Italy is watching Saudi Arabia is watching Kuwait is watching The UAE is watching Singapore is watching Djibouti is watching The Philippines is watching Israel is watching Egypt is watching Jordan is watching Turkey is watching Poland is watching Estonia is watching Canada is watching Pakistan is watching Ukraine is watching Taiwan is watching Malaysia is watching India is watching Finland is watching Romania is watching Greece is watching Georgia is watching Vietnam is watching Indonesia is watching Iraq is watching South Africa is watching Sweden is watching Denmark is watching Spain is watching Azerbaijan is watching China is watching Russia is watching Iran is watching Al Qaeda is watching (no they haven't disappeared) North Korea is watching If the US shits on one of its best friends because its current leaders has such a thin legitimacy, it's other allies and partners will start hedging their bets. Japan, Korea, Germany, the UK, etc. will all move to repair relations with China, Russia and other folk that don't hold America's interests close. Other countries like India, Indonesia, Sweden and Ukraine will figure that US partnership and support cannot be trusted. Worst of all, countries like Russia, China, Iran and DPRK will see the doubt in US friends and allies and exploit the opportunity. What the fuck you think China has been doing in the East China and South China Sea for the last 5 years?! They've proved to everyone that the US doesn't have the balls to stand up against China or the intelligence to read the play. China today asks Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, etc. "where is your god". The answer is - "Our god is off humiliating Australia for requesting a little bit of help after generations of loyalty". Now, look back at my previous post and ask yourself how strong America is when it loses Eurasia. Trump's interests are not the same as the national interest. These folk need to speak as loudly as they can: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-03/australias-day-in-us-headlines-after-trump-comments/8237946 http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/4444344/donald-trump-defends-tough-phone-calls-as-john-mccain-expresses-unwavering-support-for-australia/?cs=12 Thnkfully I believe that most Australian's think Trump is a buffoon that does not represent all of the US. We hate our system of political leadership as much as you cats do, we get it. But we cannot forget the loyalty and friendship we've had for the political benefit of a presidency by social media. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Trump tweeting that fake news is to blame for the phone call sounding poor. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-03/trump-thanks-malcolm-turnbull-for-telling-the-truth/8240608 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Also wasn't the deal for us to take in 2000 plus central American refugees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 And because you're in a good mood. A local trump hanson supporter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 "We're tough. We have to be tough. We're taken advantage of by virtually every nation in the world. It's not going to happen any more" This line fucks with me. Taken advantage of?! Really? I have mates without feet because they followed America into a war that had nothing to do with Australia. Korea pays of the all the US bases in South Korea and for 75% of the cost of all soldiers deployed there. Korea spends 2.6% on defence - how they fuck are they taking advantage of the US. Singapore spends billions for ports that can accommodate and maintain US vessels for ver little cost to the US - how they fuck are they taking advantage of the US? Sure, Japan and some Europeans should do more - no doubt. But many other countries actually PAY to have the US deployed in their region. Try seeing what life is like when no one trusts you or likes you an won't let you into their house. When you can't leave home without everything you need for your journey you will not get far. Any battle you have will be in your own neighbourhood. National security requires a international strategy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 And because you're in a good mood. A local trump hanson supporter. [ATTACH=full]220259[/ATTACH] Ha! Yeah, and let me guess, they all look and sound exactly like him and want exactly the same thing that he wants. Riiiight, I'm the same colour as him and I reckon I've more in common with many people who look and sound nothing like him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprotester Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Haha. I'm sure the closest you'd come to having a conversation with him would be accidentally receiving a pint of carlton draught and returning it to the bar. While I generally avoid Gawker for anything outside of strictly automotive only content, this is pretty neat. http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/this-wwii-booklet-helped-soldiers-translate-from-americ-1791909009 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 A "poll tax" - wow, never heard it described suchly. That's pretty cool, might have to print the whole book out and have a read. I had to accompany an international visitor to the War Memorial this week for a guided tour with their leading historian. Try telling me that was a shit way to spend half a day.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakfast menu Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 the AHCA probably won't have enough votes, and the affordable care act .... stays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Govt started giving the people some healthcare, now congress is going to vote to take it back? That would be a big fuck you to the American people. You never hear about what kind of health benefits Congress and other politicians receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Govt started giving the people some healthcare, now congress is going to vote to take it back? That would be a big fuck you to the American people. You never hear about what kind of health benefits Congress and other politicians receive. Though I agree with you regarding politicians and their health care, more specifically how they've managed to exempt themselves from the ACA and bank roll far better coverage with tax payer money (completely unconstitutionally I might add). That said the ACA is garbage and the idea that we're all entitled to free or even cheap health care is ridiculous and why its such a mess. Fact is health care is a service provided by an individual that put a massive amount of time, energy and cost into learning, using equipment that's extremely sophisticated, while operating in an environment that is generally high stress. All in all, the over head, especially after liability insurance is probably on the very highest end of the spectrum for most industries. All this said, they're still a business and without free market competition they'll fail (as they should). Government being involved just fucks up the natural balance found in open markets. Considering they actually legislated us into having to buy a service, whether we want it or not, then imposing a fine if you decide to not participate is outrageous. The ACA is an absolute disaster and fact of the matter is its collapsing on its own (my theory is that this was preordained so they can implement single payer system which was likely the goal all along, but unlikely to be able to be passed initially). No comment on the fact that its dependent on some of us having to pay a premium to subsidize or all out pay for the health care of the rest of us or the fact that it was sold to the American people as a way to bring health care costs down despite the fact that costs have actually risen quicker since its implementation. If you take a look at elective surgeries (stuff like plastic surgery or vision improvement), you'll note that this is not covered by any insurance, and definitely not the ACA plans. Yet that industry has managed to outpace most other segments of medical by making those services competitive and attractive. The techniques and success rates have evolved at a rate that outpaces most other segments of the medical industry, while the costs of them have actually come down unlike most of the medical industry which have risen dramatically. Like college educations, I might add. The only thing you're entitled to (as an American at least) is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as what's been outlined in the Bill of Rights. We are not entitled to the services of another individual / business / industry and to expect it for free or for cheap is ridiculous. It costs what the market supports and demands like all other goods and services and if left alone, it would undoubtedly find equilibrium like all other goods and services. Sorry @One Man Banned not directing this at you specifically, but that's my thoughts on the matter for whatever its worth. On a personal tip, my kids used to have insurance I could afford before this mess. We lost our doctor, lost our coverage and the speech pathologist my son used to see once a week for his lateral lisp was no longer approved despite the fact that under the ACA my coverage was costing me almost 3x as much. Eventually, I was unable to afford it and so besides losing coverage for my kids, I'm supposed to pay a fine so that they can subsidize someone else's healthcare?! Wake up people! Anything the government gets involved with goes to shit. We can't even take care of our vets, the people laying their lives on the line to fight whatever wars our government sends them off to. You really trust them to sort out everyone else's health coverage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I merely said I like the idea of people being given basic health benefits, which is a fraction of what Congress has allowed itself. I've been to other countries where people have basic health coverage if not more and well hey, having to go to a hospital in a foreign land it was kind of good to see that people were getting what they needed regardless of who they were- shit is expensive. I have no support for making people sign up for shit, taxing people, having to report it with taxes, all that type of shit. Just make shit available to people. As far as doctors and cost of care and such let me start by saying that I do believe in people being paid what their service is worth. At the same time, I haven't heard of or seen many poor/struggling doctors. Certainly there is evidence throughout the medical field of companies or individuals collecting excessive amounts, such as that pharmaceutical douche who jacked the cost of his meds sky high for profit. That's not all doctors, but my overall belief is that most are well off enough to either not charge as much, or to do some pro bono or reduced rate work, or whatever. But, I also see that a lot of the problem is insurance companies because they dictate the costs of a lot of care. If you're a practitioner, you want patients, and I'm sure you also want to charge what you want. But a lot of patients come from insurance companies, and people who pay for insurance want to use their benefits so they go where their plan allows. As a practitioner, to accept a certain insurance you have to be on the company's panel, and as part of that, they decide what you'll get paid for your services, which tends to be below what you would like to charge. The insurance companies also manage benefits that you paid for and are rightly entitled to, trying not to spend much on you. I know that ACA is not perfect, but I like that it does dictate to insurance companies that certain services, procedures, etc., people are entitled to have. Final thought, don't know about other countries but it is unfortunate that the medical field has gone in the direction of business over care for quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Really its too complicated a subject to really summarize in a forum post, but the issue (fundamentally) is Government, mostly in the form of subsidies and legislation that allows for shit like the medical insurance industry to operate as it does. People don't scrutinize medical bills because they're used to just having their insurance pay for it. If people had to pay $20 for an aspirin every time, you'd hear them screaming. When that sort of bill is passed to insurance we just shake our heads and feign outrage and likely laugh about how crazy it is. Reason it exists as such is that insurance companies don't even pay their own bills a large part of the time. Instead, they pay a percentage of it based upon them being a heavyweight middle man consumer. They're often paying pennies on the dollar for what passes through their doors, so to try and recoup medical cares charges outrageous fees and pad their invoices with unnecessary procedure. The system is being abused from every angle with consumers putting every visit on insurance instead of major health events. Medical practices are tacking on services, inflating bills and more often than they should, charging for shit that was never done. Meanwhile insurance companies are paying pennies on the dollar and passing costs on to users exponentially, especially now when there's no real competition considering the government legislated it away and are forcing a consumer market whether they want it or not. They subsidize costs so that some people basically pay nothing, while the rest foot a far a higher bill and then protect inefficient business by protecting them from going under when they would otherwise. Reality is that if it were left alone, costs would reach an equilibrium as to what the market can bear. It'll always be more than you want to pay, but left to its own, it would need to find a middle ground or there would be no demand for it. It's an equilibrium based upon how bad you want / need it against what the actual costs versus the investment(s) required. They could charge a premium, but then there's would be far fewer people consuming it. Naturally this provides an opportunity within the market for someone to fill the void of cheaper services and a larger potential pool of customers. Yes, the service may not be as premium, but then again you can stay at a Motel 6 or stay at the Waldorff based upon whether you can afford it and if you can, whether its worth it to you to pay the extra dough when all you want is a nights sleep. Reality is that the vast majority of procedures don't require an exceptional service (ie: seeing a doctor for a sore throat and sending off for a lab test). Obviously there's also laws in place that prevent malpractice and unsafe environments and practices. Think of it like this... Compare the Post Office to UPS. One is subsidized by government and can't go out of business no matter how efficient and the other is a corporation built to make money by providing services according to market demand. Its a crude analogy, but imagine the government forcing a company to build a cell phone and offer cellular service and take a guess at whether you'd see an iPhone, app store and unlimited data, et al. Likewise, how long would it take before that industry collapsed if all of us were forced into a completely manipulated market place propped up on the backs of tax payers rather than the competition we see that allows you to ditch one carrier for another or forces one to match the general cost and feature set of the others (competition)? Its a long tangled mess, but the best thing that could happen would be for the ACA to collapse and the government to step back and let the market correct itself. A shit load of people would go without insurance for a while and it would certainly be a shit show while it all unwinds, but eventually what you'd see is a competitive market place where service is based upon consumer value... If it sucks or cost too much, you don't buy until someone comes along and offers it. Now that's not to say there aren't exceptions... There is in fact a social obligation to take care of those unable to take care of themselves. No doubt there can be a massive grey area here. I do not think we should be forced into this, at least not at the federal level, but then again, there's a shit load of taxes taken each year that could be applied to taking care of our injured veterans and the tiny fraction of the US population that are clearly incapable of taking care of themselves. Rather than tax people for not participating in a service they may not even want, how about we provide tax breaks for gym memberships and eating healthy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 All this said, they're still a business and without free market competition they'll fail (as they should). Government being involved just fucks up the natural balance found in open markets. I'm sorry Raven but that is simply untrue. There are numerous countries in the world that have public health systems for decades and the businesses have not failed, including that of my country. That is not to say that any of them are perfect and that the systems are set-and-forget. But they exist and sometimes they work well. Personally, I have no problem paying $300 a year and a margin when I use the health system to help others less fortunate too access medical care. A stronger community makes me stronger. I wouldn't be a fan of the fines you cats were faced with and I'm not a fan of some of the inducements that I'm faced with either. But I'd rather have it than not. Also, I definitely like markets as unrestrained as possible and I most definitely like competition and the innovation and progress that freedom encourages. However I sometimes feel that you place too much faith in the markets as a "natural" system. Markets are driven by man and are thus as unrational as man. We have bounded rationality because we cannot tell the future and we cannot compute all the possible outcomes enough to plan for them. Thus, markets are the same as they are created and driven by humans. I'd prefer a market economy over a state driven one but I just don't think the market should be reified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I'm sorry Raven but that is simply untrue. There are numerous countries in the world that have public health systems for decades and the businesses have not failed, including that of my country. That is not to say that any of them are perfect and that the systems are set-and-forget. But they exist and sometimes they work well. Personally, I have no problem paying $300 a year and a margin when I use the health system to help others less fortunate too access medical care. A stronger community makes me stronger. I wouldn't be a fan of the fines you cats were faced with and I'm not a fan of some of the inducements that I'm faced with either. But I'd rather have it than not. Also, I definitely like markets as unrestrained as possible and I most definitely like competition and the innovation and progress that freedom encourages. However I sometimes feel that you place too much faith in the markets as a "natural" system. Markets are driven by man and are thus as unrational as man. We have bounded rationality because we cannot tell the future and we cannot compute all the possible outcomes enough to plan for them. Thus, markets are the same as they are created and driven by humans. I'd prefer a market economy over a state driven one but I just don't think the market should be reified. Name a country that has 320 million people in which this works. There are some exceptions that show socialism working okay, but without exception its been countries with comparatively small populations and generally with comparatively abundant natural resources (which lead to stronger exports and therefore economies). And again, that's not to get into the actual legality of it. We have a constitution that explicitly defines the scope of our government, as well as the rights of its people. No doubt that free market capitalism is imperfect as is man himself, but it's made the USA the nation that is and there is something to be said about that. Kudos to those willing to help their fellow man. In fact, I'd argue that the USA as a whole has done quite a bit in that regard, but you can't force that upon someone. Taxes are theft no matter how you qualify it. It's taking the success of one mans labor and redistributing it to another under the threat of violence. You don't pay taxes, you get fined. You don't pay the fine, you lose your freedom. You resist, and you're met with violence. Plain and simple. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Oh and... Personally, I have no problem paying $300 a year and a margin when I use the health system to help others less fortunate too access medical care. A stronger community makes me stronger. I think if it were only $300 people might be more inclined to participate, thought it should still not be forced via significant fine. The reality is the plan I qualified for was just over $1200 a month for a family of 4 with a $2000 deductible. No matter if I liked it or not, I simply could not afford an extra $1200+ a month. The next plan, if I recall correctly was $950 or so a month and had a $5000 deductible. So I'm literally paying almost $17,000 in a year before they cover my costs, assuming I use it at all. Regardless of how bad it is, I shouldn't be threatened by massive fine into participating. Markets are driven by man and are thus as unrational as man More reason to strive for individual liberty rather than impose the will of one man on another. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 You guys and your smart talk make my brain hurt now that I'm a drink + some into the evening. But again, been places where they have standard access to health care for everyone and the country has not sunk into the ocean or anything so I think it's possible to replicate elsewhere. Things like that could easily be done here much in the way Hua says as far as cost if everyone contributed a small amount. I remember a few years back there was a news blurb about the amount of money my state makes on unreturned bottles/cans- you bought it, paid a bottle deposit, but didn't return it. It was millions, and that's just from 5 cents a can that someone tossed out a window or whatever. Turning brain off now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Name a country that has 320 million people in which this works. There are some exceptions that show socialism working okay, but without exception its been countries with comparatively small populations and generally with comparatively abundant natural resources (which lead to stronger exports and therefore economies). And again, that's not to get into the actual legality of it. We have a constitution that explicitly defines the scope of our government, as well as the rights of its people. Well that's shifting the goal posts a little! Your previous statement didn't qualify "a business and without free market competition they'll fail in conditions identical to the USA". It was an absolute statement that you've now qualified. And to that qualification, you may be right, Australia, Sweden, the UK, Norway, etc. are all small populations compared to the US, but then again so are all other countries bar India and China!! Secondly, the US may have a huge population but it is also endowed with some of the largest natural resources of all countries: oil, gas, coal, arable land, fresh water, minerals, etc. etc. But I won't get into whether it's suitable for the US as I am way out of my depth there. And as for the legality and constitution, that is a not a natural and absolute truth, you can choose to amend and change that if that suits the national interest. I'm not suggesting that is a good idea but you have to remember that the constitution is not a god, it's a man made reality that only exists because you choose it to. No doubt that free market capitalism is imperfect as is man himself, but it's made the USA the nation that is and there is something to be said about that. Kudos to those willing to help their fellow man. In fact, I'd argue that the USA as a whole has done quite a bit in that regard, but you can't force that upon someone. Taxes are theft no matter how you qualify it. It's taking the success of one mans labor and redistributing it to another under the threat of violence. You don't pay taxes, you get fined. You don't pay the fine, you lose your freedom. You resist, and you're met with violence. Plain and simple. This starts to get into ideas of the social contract, liberty, etc. All philosophical and fundamental issues of the utmost importance to modern life but something I'm not qualified (or particularly interest) to discuss. We did go through a lot of lectures at uni with the whole "the sate is organised crime" for the exact reasons you've pointed out above - and I might add that university in Australia is heavily subsidised. Interesting and important discussions but a direction I never really followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Well that's shifting the goal posts a little! Your previous statement didn't qualify "a business and without free market competition they'll fail in conditions identical to the USA". It was an absolute statement that you've now qualified. And to that qualification, you may be right, Australia, Sweden, the UK, Norway, etc. are all small populations compared to the US, but then again so are all other countries bar India and China!! Secondly, the US may have a huge population but it is also endowed with some of the largest natural resources of all countries: oil, gas, coal, arable land, fresh water, minerals, etc. etc. But I won't get into whether it's suitable for the US as I am way out of my depth there. And as for the legality and constitution, that is a not a natural and absolute truth, you can choose to amend and change that if that suits the national interest. I'm not suggesting that is a good idea but you have to remember that the constitution is not a god, it's a man made reality that only exists because you choose it to. Symantics, but I see your point. Still doesn't change the reality of what the USA faces in such a system. Also, a POV rarely considered is simply the cultural differences between the USA and everyone else. Obviously the culture of any country is unique, but the USA was built on a culture of rebellion and independence. Granted it's been diluted a lot as people lose site of the ideals and context that led to the countries founding, as well as influx of immigration that brings its own flavor into the mix, but as a whole (and especially in what they call the 'fly over states', there is still a streak of independence that likely tracks back to the pioneers that pushed West and settled this country. Freedom and independence runs deep here (for the most part) and the idea of taking care of yourself, and not joining a collective, is innate. The ideas of socialism is almost diametric to how this country is established and *supposed to be* governed. No doubt resources plays a huge part into the success of socialism, but only when those resources are owned by the people as a whole (socialism) or the state (communism). That's not really the case here, but again, the size of our country compounded by the size of our population means that we're essentially 50 countries (or close to it). Every state in the USA has its own particular culture at the macro level. Even comparing ones that are politically aligned like California and New York City (I know NYC is not a state, but its still roughly 8+ million people), you see that the culture is completely different. This becomes more obvious when you compare urban vs rural, northern vs southern and eastern vs western, but really even states next to each other are vastly different (ie: Massachusetts vs New Hampshire or New Jersey vs Pennsylvania). I know this is similar to a degree in other larger countries (Australia for example), but nobody else has the population AND geographic disparity that we do (except perhaps China, which ironically is moving away from communism / socialism to capitalism or at least a unique hybrid of it unique to them). This starts to get into ideas of the social contract, liberty, etc. All philosophical and fundamental issues of the utmost importance to modern life but something I'm not qualified (or particularly interest) to discuss. We did go through a lot of lectures at uni with the whole "the sate is organised crime" for the exact reasons you've pointed out above - and I might add that university in Australia is heavily subsidised. Interesting and important discussions but a direction I never really followed. Yeah, again... These are ideas that are absolutely fundamental to America. America's political system is entirely unique, and especially at the time of it's founding. Some influence was taken from ancient Greek democracy, some from ancient Roman republicanism, and much from essays on freedom from England during a time that their people we're reigning in the power of the monarchy. Ultimately, it's setup as a Constitutional Republic with very specific legislation mean to hold our governments power in check and to preserve the individual liberty / freedom of the people to which the government is accountable. There are segments that are subject to democratic vote, which are very clearly outlined and absolutely subject to the Bill of Rights that sit above all of it. Further, the process was very well documented (they literally took 4 years to finalize and ratify it) so there's a ton of context that very clearly explains the spirit of the law, for all the assholes that come since that are unable to accept the letter of the law. And to conclude my rant, that's why there should not be government managed, or large scale subsidization, of our health care. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty_habiT Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Good reading in here. I'd like to add that I've noticed an uptick in people thinking the Constitution is a "living document" that is meant to change with the times. The Constitution, as it stands, is not meant to be changed and was meant to withstand the test of time for any foreseeable future. The Constitution IS why America is America and we're seeing a lot of groups today trying to limit things like Free Speech and Gun Rights under the guise of "progress". The only progress I'm seeing is pushing towards a police state where the unruly have been so pushy about trying to get their way that the police have to step in and the government has to put a stop to it. On the subject of socialism, it's a horrible idea and would never work in America. Just because you vote to steal from someone doesn't make it not immoral to steal. It's a highly ridiculous notion that someone with a lot of money should pay for those that have not applied themselves in life to also be successful. I'll use my younger brother as an example: 1. We came from an apartment and were raised by a single mother. 2. We always got good grades in school because this was made to be a priority in our house hold. 3. Being grounded and getting spanked for not following rules and/or "talking back" was a thing. 4. Later my younger brother "tried" college and realized that it wasn't going to get him where he wanted to go quickly. 5. Younger brother buys books with his own money and studies to get a Cisco CCNA, then CCNP, and now CCIE. 6. Younger brother makes well over 6 figures of income all on his own volition without handouts from anyone. 7. Younger brother pays more in taxes each year than many people make in a year. 8. Younger brother hates "programs" that "steal from the rich to give to the poor." The government isn't the peoples' own personal robin hood. If you want something in life you need to work for it. If you intend to have "hand outs" to get you by then maybe North Korea is a good spot to go, where the government dictates what people have and don't have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.