pirana

The term is open to interprettion, and my opinion is that yes, we are relatively free. We can vote in open elections, we can live where we want, pursue our education and career of choice, practice religion freely, speak out against our government (these forums being a perfect example), get married and have families without a whole lot of restriction, eat really shitty fast food, buy really fast cars, live in squalor, grow our hair long, go to church in shorts, stand on the streetcorner and rant like a lunatic, and a whole lot of other things. There may be places where there are little tiny increments of additional freedom, but there are a whole lot of places where many of the things we take for granted would land you in the clink, if not on the chopping block. In my mind the granting of much more freedom than we have would bring us perilously close to voiding the social contract. I get the feeling that those who answer that we are not free might prefer something close to anarchy. What freedoms would you be looking for if you've said we are not free? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It proves capitalism doesn't work perfectly. Neither does any other type of economy, though the definition of perfect is open to interpretation. Some people's definition of perfect might include no risk. Not mine. Risk is part of capitalism. So is speculation. Bubbles are and will always be a part of any market economy. If VISA gave you a credit line beyond your means and you got in trouble; yes, you are to blame for your personal demise. If they give millions of people credit beyond their limit and they abuse it and bring down the national or global economy, then VISA shares blame. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Greenspan has even admitted his errors in thinking. I've not seen anybody from any angle dispute the source of the problem. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

When has it worked? Details. please. USA following the Great Depression and Japan in the 80's are 2 prime examples of governments injecting big money to create commerce to alleviate short term catastrophic pain. Remember, I didn't say it fixed things by completely eliminating all problems and pain; just that it is one option to reduce the level of short term pain. That reduction is paid for by having to endure lower levels of pain long term. There will be some pain no matter what. It is impossible to fool a contracting economy just by printing more money. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Eating grass, and leaving shit behind. Bad visuals. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

He loves everybody, but is still going to condemn some portion to roast forever. And where does He get all these virgins that He is going to shower on certain people? That's a lot of virgins. Must have a huge stockpile of them in some sort of virgin warehouse. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I always wondered why some peoples breath smelled like fish. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Since we don't know, I think the only two options ought to be: 1 - Thinking we are alone but not knowing, and . . . 2 - Thinking we are not alone but not knowing. Except of course for the privileged few that are channelling alien communications and do know. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Finally saw it this past week. Good fun in his pokings at the literal fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible; but that is such an easy target. Better was his pinning people down on their hypocritical behaviors. Quite entertaining, with a few nuggets of good wisdom. What I find most amazing is that those with blind faith in the ancient techings so easily dismiss (or ignore) the overwhelming archaeological and historical evidence for the roots of religion simply because it does not fit with what they were told to believe. Loads of information versus somebody said so. Must be a matter of upbringing to choose dogma versus questioning. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The way it works is we go further into debt to try to generate commerce that will stimulate the economy, create jobs, get back on track, and eventually pay off said debt. It has been shown to work (usually), but does not reduce the total pain. Just spreads the pain out further into the future. The real debate is the balance between (potentially) incredibly painful consequences for the short term, or mild pain over a longer term. There is no pat answer as economics is a behavioral science, not a pure science. Which is to say that given the exact same inputs, the results will vary if for nothing else than the mood of the darn humans involved. People see economists using charts and graphs and numbers and think it is like math; that if something is shown to equal something else, it will always equal that something. It's more like psychology and is dependent on that fragile emotionasl thing called the human mind. As an aside, read Why Things Bite Back for some really good material on unintended consequences brought on by good intentions. By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying this is why they are doing it, that it is just one of the options, that there is no way to know the exact consequences of any of the options, and . . . SPLUNGE. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, he is the Mayor of uh, . . . uh, what the hell was he the Mayor of again? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Who the hell goofed up the thread by posting text that makes the posts 4 screens wide? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I throw it all in a box and save it to start fires. I should be more careful though. One of these days the investigators are going to find a partially burnt envelope with my name on it; and then I'll be in big trouble. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Thank you. I've been consulting in health care financing operations nearly my entire adult life. As anybody else intimately close to the issues could tell you; the answers are pretty easy - so it's not like I'm a rocket scientist or anything - I just do not pay homage to any sacred cows. The solution is easy. The hard part is that all the little birds with their beaks in the air don't want anything to change. #1 - National mandate (as in many states today) that to be in the business requires being not-for-profit. Critical because short term shareholder interest is in direct conflict with long term needs for improving public health. #2 - Regulation at the national level. Also critical because some insurance companies and many large employers game the system via geography and the differences between states. #3 - Eliminate special provisions based on political affiliation, employer size, etc. In fact, get employers out of the business altogether. Need for health care is not dependent on where you work and what you do for a living. This one also gets rid of our legislators bad habit of exempting themselves from the rules they make. (Any time the people who make the rules exempt themselves should be a red flag). It also gets rid of need for temporary provisions when between jobs, which is a huge administrative hassle for all parties. Pre-X BS becomes a thing of the past because all coverage is continuous. There is so much to gain by removing employers from the picture. #4 - Automate everything. With the immense volumes of transactions involved, every bit of automation saves huge amounts of money. #5 - Standardized benefit sets. Another humongous step for administrative savings. Minimal but reasonable set of benefits for everybody with emphasis on preventive care, incentives for managing chronic diseases, and sliding premiums based on income. Half a dozen levels available for people who want to pay more on their own. #6 - Outcomes studies available to the public, and preferred networks based on a matrix of price and quality of care. Those fundamental changes would be the place to start. Everybody in the business knows it, but nobody with the power and authority will stick out their neck and fight to make it happen because those things are so fraught with political peril. I see the current administration pushing in the right direction on some of these, but then also see people whining about it. People either need to stop whining and pay the curent price, or let some people that know what they are doing start effecting some positive change. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Absolutely agree (on the health care part). Health care (providing it and financing it) should all be in the not-for-profit realm. Organizations adminstered by trustees with a goal of positive impact on public health and no interference from needing to satisfy stockholders. It is a very good solution because there is still pressure to be effective and answer to a bottom line (need to be solvent and maintain claims reserves while ensuring good outcomes) but there is no pressure to not pay for needed care. In fact, with proper auditing in place, there is every incentive to get it right. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

All treatment is too expensive. Cost of care is beyond ridiculous. The root cause is not the 10 or 12% admin of insurance companies. Eliminate them, and their admin and you save one year's rate increase; assuming you can find someone to administer the plan for free. Then what do you do the next year, and the year after that? Cost of care is outrageous and continues to climb, outpacing inflation every year, most years by about 4 to 5 times. People need to look at the bill from their provider. Ask if it is really worth it. If the answer is yes, then quit griping about insurance rates. Those rates are a direct reflection of cost of care, and would be much higher without things like drug formularies, medical review, exclusions for experimental, cosmetic, etc. Demonstrating the public lack of awareness of cost of care is a bill moving thru the MN legislature right now that decrees comprehensive, no out-of-pocket coverage for every MN resident. That is no copay, no deductible, no coinsurance; full coverage for all care. It also stipulates a sliding premium based on ability to pay. It of course does not address who will make up the difference for those that can not pay the approximately $800 to $1000 per month per person such a plan would cost. BTW, brought to you by the same folks that want to legislate premium caps (fixed dollar amounts) that are way below actual cost of care. We've got legislators and regulators who need to go back and retake 4th grade arithmetic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'd have to put a big fat "FAIL" stamp on that goal. Yeah, he'll be sitting across from someone at a job interview someday. They are perusing his resume, and the interviewer notes the noble goal of combatting anti-Islam stereotypes; "But I have some concerns about the lopping-off-the-wife's-head behavior. A particularly bad day maybe?" " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yeah, if they start rambling on about The Life Force and other oogie-boogie, find a different person. They are most likely one of those that think they can cure anything via just the right spinal manipulation. What sticks in my mind is the one that killed Andy Warhol while trying to treat him for appendicitis with some sort of "mashing" procedure; and the guy that damn near severed my spinal cord trying to "adjust" a totally ruptured disc. Even after looking at an x-ray he says he can help me. Two days later I end up in the ER, a couple x-rays and I get walked directly to the MRI. The image showed the disc basically gone, the vetabrae so far out of line it almost looked cartoonish and the cord pinched down to almost nothing. If I ever go to one again I'll interview them to see if they recognize any limits. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The better insurance companies have been doing outcomes studies for ages, comparing effectiveness of varying treatment regimens. They have mountains of data. They have info that shows you are more likely to get certain treatments at certain providers. They also can show you have significantly different chances of fatal outcome based on your choice of provider. Not surprisingly, some medical professionals have fought hard to keep this information out of the public eye; but it is beginning to be put to use. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm not aware of any private insurance companies with administration costs as low as Medicare's. Medicare's admin costs are about 5.2% (some estimates are as low as 2%), while private insurance admin costs, including commissions, profit, etc., average 16.7% (some estimates are as high as 20-25%). While some people might be okay paying that extra 11.5%, I would prefer a more efficient system. Varies widely by state too. Where the mandate is to be not for profit, admin rates are much lower. (Most commercial companies won't even do business in some of those states). Also, some states have legislated loss-ratios (must pay out X% of revenues in form of claims payment). MN is 10% for fully insured. Also, Medicare isn't doing any underwriting, little actuarial, has a very small set of highly standardized benefits, much cheaper to provide collateral, set-up, service, etc because of standardized benefit sets. Maybe that makes a case for how the system should be? Just remember, product specialization, flexibility in benefits, cost containment programs, etc all cost money to employ. One last thing; little known secret - Most, if not all Medicare plans are administered via a bid process by commercial and not for profits. The difference is not who is doing the work, it's the work that needs to be done. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, if that is what defines dad, that he is an accountant; then I'd agree. Sounds like from some of the comments here that some have given up. Parents don't need to try to replace celebrity worship; just raise children that do not worship celebrity. First step in doing that is to not worship it yourself. When I see a statement that we as parents can't possibly replace rock stars or athletes I think possibly it is too late. Seeing them as something that must be replaced implies that their is some principle (or at least specific beliefs) in place that causes the kids to have assigned them superhuman status to begin with. Like I said, it is learned. Kids do not automatically adore celebrities, the adore them because they see too many adults adoring them. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That would be difficult. You are aware Reagan is dead? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Just the fact we have an environment where they idolize athletes at all is not a good example. They shouldn't idolize athletes or politicians. They should have role models of good parents, responsible adults that meet their commitments, any decent person that's close to them in life. Not some asshole they won't ever interact with personally. I don't care what athletes, or politicians, or actors, or whoever...do with themselves. I'm teaching my daughter to find people in her direct life to admire and emulate - and exceed some day. It's the difference in teaching them to work with reality instead of fiction in their lives. That's the way it should be. Wanting to be like a boy's father or uncle. A girl wanting to be like mom or grandma. Unfortunately, too many kids grow-up in single parent situations, for one reason or another. Also, look at the number of magazines on the news stands that glorify and glamorize athletes, rap stars, rock stars, movie stars and etc.. What's a kid to do? I think, the way you are raising your child is great. That's the way it should be and don't quit! Reality speaks otherwise. To me, anyone on the front cover of Sports Illustrated, Tiger Beat or any other magazine needs to step-up and be the person, athlete, rock star, whatever that kids see. No matter how hard a parent tries to get their kids to emulate them or a relative, they will always be inundated with 'stars'. For a kid to think that taking drugs and making tons of money is the way to go, he got it from some 'star' and that star should have his ass beat... not glorified. Chuck I think the fundamental problem, alluded to here if not outright stated, is that too many parents are too fucking lazy and are allowing pop culture to raise their kids. My observation in our little community is that it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, I don't think it is even that difficult to steer them away from it. It's called spending more time with your kids than they spend with bullshit pop culture outlets. I've actually taken some criticism from people because I am not more available for things like happy hour, all night drinking binges, and other activities. I have my fun, but my priority will never be pulling the kid from practice so I don't miss happy hour. Then you meet their kids and feel bad for the raw start they are getting. My kids think those that fawn over Hannah Montana and other similar pop BS are wacko. Kids learn stupidity and laziness and celebrity worship - it is not the default mode. Learning challenging material is the brains natural default mode, it is a survival trait we are wired for from birth, and my off the cuff guess based on exposure in our community is that about half the parents I know fuck that up completely. When you decide to become a parent, your responsibilities change dramatically (I know, understatement big time), and my personal opinion is that about half the current young adult population ought to be nuetered. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Those are some pretty good summations. Basically we are going to fake people into feeling better and stretch out the fixed amount of inevitable financial pain for longer than it would occur in a natural correction. The price of that is the burden we dump on the rest of our lives, and the younger generation, and the plasticity we permanently remove from the markets. I'd much prefer shorter duration of higher pain level, and also wish there was a way it could be more directed at the morons that made it happen. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I take it you do not like or approve of the celebrating; but you are aware that there does exist this thing called Valentines Day? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley