I've seen things about that.

However, that is irrelevant evidence for disproving what is scientifically accepted NOW, not thirty years ago.

Yeah Lobo you lying sack o' puff! Actually global warming hasn't been scientifically proven but I'm not going to argue with ya. Just do as Michael Moore tells you and you'll be just fine.

And the relevance of this to "Sicko" is...

John

It's relevant not to Sicko, but to the (then) two (now three) posts by MagicMan226 about An Inconvenient Truth, none of which drew a comment from you about being relevant to Sicko.

I guess nobody complains when it's part of the right choir...

That's true, but it IS relevant for questioning the certainty of the conclusions being drawn. The mainstream GW line is that it's a century-old problem, yet 3/4 of the way into the century, not only was it not apparent, but the bold proclamation was the exact opposite. It is relevant to the question, "Is X definitely true because it is the opinion of a majority of scientists studying the subject?"

Nine out of ten of the doctors we selected
Most of the journal articles we decided to publish
Almost every reputable researcher we decided to fund
Have agreed that...

They know where their paycheck comes from.
And like to get paid.

Anyone want to discuss the artifacts of politicized science?

Would you believe there was once a society whose brightest minds were working with a model of reality that had the earth as a bubble in a giant rock and the forces of fire and ice were at war and to protect the world and its future the fire had to win lest the cold extinguish the fire of creation forever? No joke. Ironicly it was an unwise or ill timed excursion into a large cold place caused their defeat. Really.

To not know how politicized science has hurt societies in the long and short term is funny in a sad way. But also a badge of a willful ignorance in an age where pertinent data are easily accessible.

Science is a societal activity. There is no such thing as de-politicized Science. The question is whose politics and why.


Laying the cards on the table,
Jack Shalom

"whose politics and why" are fair questions.

How might one research the who?

How might one research the why if one does not know the who?

All we see here in mass media land is the "what" those who own the media feel is fit to print.

The declaration that started the entire global warming issue was signed by dozens and dozens of 'scientist'. Very few, if any (except those that had global warming as a thesis subject) were in a discipline that would research anything that would give them knowledge if the earth was warming or cooling or anything else. Being a 'scientist' or a PhD doesn't give anyone anymore knowledge of an area not of their expertise than a guy loading a truck. Also keep in mind those crying loudest are giving the worse, and nearly unlikely, scenerio. Those who actually work in the field believe if global warming is happening the change would be less than a degree. Personally I think everyone of 'em has their own agenda and just are looking for sheep to follow them. Michael Moore (who is chubby!) is a great sheep herder.....bleat! bleat!

As JT says we live in an age of easily accessible pertinent data. The question of whose politics is not hard to find.

For some data on how to see how the scientific waters get polluted one can begin to look at:

legacy.library.ucsf.edu

and

sourcewatch.org

Why are people so shocked, shocked that corporations seek to maximize profit? That is their legal mandate! But let's not conflate what's good for a corporation with what's best for an individual.

Of course Moore has an agenda--who doesn't? The question is who does the agenda benefit? Moore is a great self-promoter and from what I understand, not much of a pleasant person to be around, to say the least. But his agenda is far more beneficial to far more people in the US than Philip Morris' is. And Phillip Morris has been at it a long time.

Jack Shalom

Ever been a cop or firefighter? I have. TRUST ME it would be better run by other than the government. Also I asked for the government operations which they made CHEAPER and BETTER. Your example of the library is interesting. Far more University libraries are better equipt are they not?

Are you telling me Medicare is run well? Do you want the rest of the medical profession run as such? Please if your making a counter point make a good one at least.

I find it laughable that the mortality rate gets tossed about like it has anything to do with what percentage of the population isn't insured. We have a pretty low rate considering our crime rate, drugs and poor diet, not to mention the risks we take in our daily lives.

I think that all our healthcare system needs is a tweak here and there. But, a complete change is nothing more than a stupid dog chasing his tail.

The question I pose is, is Sicko strong enough to reach those (us) who can affect change?


Off Topic: For all those cross posting nuts.
forecastingprinciples.com and
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/

Dannydoyle: ask folks over 65 which part of Medicare works better--the govt run portion or the privatized drug portion. Ask them if they would be happier if it didn't exist. Private insurance for people over 65 is incredibly expensive, and would be more so if Medicare didn't exist.

Ask folks over 65 whether they would like to privatize Social Security. That's already been answered--even with a Reublican Congress it couldn't get through.

University Libraries are not cheaper--unless you can prove you're a "qualified" researcher, most universities do not allow access to just anyone. You usually must attend the University. Not cheap by a long shot! Yet I can go to the NYC Central Library and access most any book ever published.

As for cops and firefighters, no I've never been one. We used to have competing gangs of volunteer firefighters in NYC during the 19th century. It was interesting--the firefighters would start the fires so that they could prove they were the best team. We also had private agencies like the Pinkertons who because they were private had little regulation by the public and were known to be particularly brutal, and not accountable to anybody but their company. In a similar way, we have the current privatization of the military, where abuses by private contractors go largely unchecked, not falling under military jurisdiction and law.

But getting back to medicine: please take a look at the link I posted which is in your last reply to me. Between the choice of government and private health insurance companies, it is clear that the government for all its bureaucratic nonsense is less expensive than the private insurers with their multi-millionaire CEOS to pay. As for quality, it is difficult to believe that the quality in the present system where a person gets an average of 6 minutes with the doctor is particularly stellar.

Now there are some folks who can afford not to have health insurance at all and are able to see the doctor of their choice, the top in his/her field. These people are indeed fortunate to be wealthy enough to buy such care. And perhaps one could argue that in a capitalist society, it's only right that the wealthy get more since they pay more. My arguments refuting this position are the following:

1) The percentage of Americans who can afford the above is a very small number. Healthcare should not be organized to advantage only the smallest number of people. If they would like to pay for such additional care they may, but the majority of citizens must be taken care of as well.

2 )When we're talking about healthcare, we're not talking about someone buying a Porsche versus the person who can only afford a Volkswagen. Because the mortality rate is 100%, healthcare is a necessity, not a luxury.

Anyway, I'm happy to continue putting my thoughts out there, and glad this is a pretty civilized conversation.

Jack Shalom

"Anyway, I'm happy to continue putting my thoughts out there, and glad this is a pretty civilized conversation."

Me too Jack.
The other day I read a story about Sprint dumping high maintenance, annoying customers. The first thing I thought was Sprint's CEO must have been trained by insurance providers. So the new corporate mantra is, "The customer's always wrong."

Hi, Jack:

For political disclosure purposes, I am a life-long Republican with Libertarian leanings and a narrow construalist (i.e., Jeffersonian) with regard to the Constitution. In contrast to your posts, it is my view that the necessity of one does not create obligation for another.

That being said, it is clear that there are disagreements over the extent of government's role in sustaining its citizenry. You support an enhanced role, against the limited role supported by others. In defence of socialisation, you've offered the police, fire department, libraries, and other services which purportedly do better than their private counterparts have done/do/could do. But your standard appears arbitrary.

On what political theory do you base your position that our government ought to provide any social service to its citizenry? On what political theory do you limit your view to the services you've mentioned, rather than expanding those services to include other such necessities as housing, food, and clothing?

Leland

Leland,
The truth is, nearly everyone posting here (myself included, now that you have pointed it out)is using arbitrary criteria, anecdotal arguments and inconsistent points-of view. As in all the other political threads here, "Where you stand depends on where you sit".
At least this one has remained remarkably civil.
Don

And now that Jack is arguing in favor of how good the public library system is, we've truly come full circle (for whomever remembers THAT thread).

Posted: Jul 11, 2007 6:47pm
Quote:


On 2007-07-11 11:08, landmark wrote:

Ask folks over 65 whether they would like to privatize Social Security. That's already been answered--even with a Republican Congress it couldn't get through.



A better question to have asked them might have been whether they'd rather have had the right to not have had the entire SS deduction taken out of their checks, and rather been given the option to invest it as they see fit, for 45 years. At about a 10% annualized rate of return for 85 years, through the Great Depression, the dot com bust, and 9-11...substract taxes and you're still around 7ish percent, compounded...vs. the amount that Social Security actually returns to you?!

The fact that privatization didn't fly politically doesn't mean it's worse; it means it's less popular (logic with which I presume anyone in favor of free (sic) health care would agree). I realize this is a sidelight, but I'm all for a separate thread, if someone wants to take the position that the giving people the option to control part of their retirement funds is worse, either morally OR economically, then taking their money by force, investing it poorly, and incrementally returning the pitiful remnants of it to them when they have fewer than 10 years to live, on statistical average. God forbid we let people keep and invest their own wages.

More amusingly, most of the anti-privatization positions come from the people warning me about Big Brother (and that's not a personal shot, Jack, but rather a general comment on the standard partisan debate on this particular matter. I'd be just as happy to discuss right wing hypocrisy on a number of topics from the drug war to illegal immigration to gay marriage).

So Jack your admitting the University Library system is better, and it has to be paid for. I am oddly taken aback as you prove the point for me.

Well, MagicSanta, I checked the (institutional) facts. I emailed the provincial health care insurance plan to see if a "one hip per client" policy was in place. It turns out that it would not be legal under the Canada Health Act. (Each province manages its health care system, but is constrained by federal legislation.)

Here is the response:
"Under the Canada Health Act, the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan (AHCIP) is responsible for providing residents with full coverage for insured medically required physician services provided in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. Alberta Health relies on the medical community to determine when services are medically required and insured by the AHCIP. This decision is left to the professional judgement of the physician performing the surgery. Therefore, you would need to ask the surgeon performing the hip replacement if they consider it to be medically required or cosmetic."

John

Fair enough, Don; one's perspective is influenced by one's interests. And the discussion here is remarkably civil, given the potentially incendiary topic.

Still, it seems to me that the underlying question is whether one person's need creates another person's obligation, and how that answer applies to the creation and administration of a federal health care policy.

In my estimation, it does not, and the basis for this view is a narrowly-construed reading of the Founders' writings.