The main theme of Atlas Shrugged, as I understand it, is that we should all give praise to the awesome creators of enterprise, because they are the source from which all good things spring.
Well, that's not an entirely accurate assumption on the part of Ayn Rand.
I'm just going to throw out a few examples.
If I buy a farm in 1850, then my heirs discover through absolute chance that it has oil on it, then I wouldn't call that an example of "Atlas". It's more like dumb-luck.
Workers and owners are a matched set...sorta. I'd actually argue that the owners are generally more replaceable than the workers. One exception would be for inventors, and another would be for those making a HUGE gamble.
If the owners of all toilet paper factories burned down their facilities, there would be plenty of people ready to build and take the place of those owners. These people would come from that pesky, unappreciative class of bitches, referred to by the politically-correct term "workers". They would be composed of all the people with a decent chunk of money and drive who have been shut out by the previous owners with whom they could not compete. Chances are, they couldn't compete because the previous owners had an established market, or they used predatory business tactics. (BTW, my father's grocery store was bankrupted by the local corporate grocery chain through predatory business tactics. Should we praise these tyrants as Atlas?)
If you argue that the new group of owners are once again members of Atlas, then I beg to differ. These owners are derived from the poorer class that would be THRILLED to make more money, even at a higher tax rate and more regulation.
I'm certainly not arguing in favor of more taxes, or that I think the government uses taxes efficiently. I'm a real capitalist to the bone, except that I cannot tolerate unethical behavior. One example: Microsoft censoring the Internet for China. It's treason, if you ask me, or at least socialist.
But I think it's a fallacy to think that all the owners are such a bunch of gifts to our society. The world is owned by the people, and not by corporations or business owners. The people decide what is best. The people decided that capitalism is a cool system, but they still have the right to change their mind anytime they want. Certainly there may be repercussions if they change their minds, but there are always repercussions to everything. That's that whole "Liberty" thing that we all love.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
-The U.S. Declaration of Independence.
If the people don't like the new situation, they can change it. Society IS the people. Sure, a tyrannical government can stomp dissent down, but if everybody dissents and refuses to cooperate, then what is the point of the government? Try stopping dissent when your army won't go along.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Silent Majority? give me a break.
First, Obama, and just about every other politician that I know of (except for Dubya, of course) was voted in by a MAJORITY of voters.
Also, notice that the "Silent Majority" is basically composed of a bunch of radical, ignorant Conservatives. This is not to say that all Conservatives are radical and ignorant; but there are a bunch of them.
Next, view this photo.
After you stop ranting about how this photo is from CNN, notice that the Democrats also don't have the majority. So, also assuming that every Republican is not an idiot (and I know for a fact that every Republican is not an idiot) the "silent majority" could not possibly be a majority, provided they are drawn exclusively from the Republican party.
Now, I know, the "Silent Majority" is not drawn exclusively from the Republicans. But the Reps are more likely to become a member of the non-"Silent Majority", than are the Independents and the Dems. I'd argue that almost all of the sinning, tree-hugging, Marxist Democrats are not part of this "Silent Majority."
I can guarantee you that most Independents are not part of the "Silent Majority," because they tend to be the most rational of the three groups (Dems, Indies, and Reps.)
So, the Silent Majority is not a majority. This is one more piece of evidence that the Silent Majority is really composed primarily of ill-informed, poorly educated, media (Fox News) driven, panic-y idiots.
Also, notice that the "Silent Majority" is basically composed of a bunch of radical, ignorant Conservatives. This is not to say that all Conservatives are radical and ignorant; but there are a bunch of them.
Next, view this photo.
After you stop ranting about how this photo is from CNN, notice that the Democrats also don't have the majority. So, also assuming that every Republican is not an idiot (and I know for a fact that every Republican is not an idiot) the "silent majority" could not possibly be a majority, provided they are drawn exclusively from the Republican party.
Now, I know, the "Silent Majority" is not drawn exclusively from the Republicans. But the Reps are more likely to become a member of the non-"Silent Majority", than are the Independents and the Dems. I'd argue that almost all of the sinning, tree-hugging, Marxist Democrats are not part of this "Silent Majority."
I can guarantee you that most Independents are not part of the "Silent Majority," because they tend to be the most rational of the three groups (Dems, Indies, and Reps.)
So, the Silent Majority is not a majority. This is one more piece of evidence that the Silent Majority is really composed primarily of ill-informed, poorly educated, media (Fox News) driven, panic-y idiots.
The birth certificate
OK, wing-nuts. Obama cannot show you his original birth certificate for two reasons:
1) He doesn't have the original copy. NOBODY has their original copy. The original is held by your state/county/city government. You (and he) only have a copy of the original.
2) If he did have the original, there just isn't enough time in anybody's life to thoroughly examine the document. If each person looked at it for only one second, which certainly wouldn't be enough time for you wackos to authenticate it, only 50,000 people could view it a day. I suspect each wing-nut would need at least 10 minutes to decide that there is something wrong with it, because you nut-jobs will just never believe anything.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Brazilian legal system is worse than ours
They are in collusion with the abductors of Sean Goldman to keep him away from his father.
WTF!!!!
I would think that their culture would desire to get a child back to his family as fast as possible, but they are acting TOTALLY against this concept.
This is a FREAKING no-brainer. The father and the mother were cusodial parents, the mom kidnapped the child, and now the child is being held by people who have no right to the child. The father is the parent and the child belongs to him. And the specious argument that this family in Brazil might have a right to the child on the basis that he spent so much time with them is the MOST absurd thing I've ever heard. So, basically, if I kidnap a child and spend enough time in Brazil with the child, he's mine to keep?
Brazil, go screw yourself. If this is the logic you use in the most important of circumstances, you are more of a hindrance than a friend.
If you recall the Elian Gonzales situation, that situation lasted a few months. This BS in Brazil has last YEARS. The US government sent the Elian back to Communist Cuba because we knew he belonged with his father.
And for you Brazilians:
Eles estão em conluio com os raptores de Sean Goldman para mantê-lo longe de seu pai.
WTF!!
Gostaria de pensar que a sua cultura desejaria receber uma criança de volta à sua família o mais rápido possível, mas eles estão agindo totalmente contra este conceito.
Esta é uma FREAKING acéfalo. O pai ea mãe eram pais cusodial, a mãe da criança raptada, e agora a criança está sendo realizada por pessoas que não têm o direito à criança. O pai é o progenitor e da criança pertence a ele. E o argumento capcioso que esta família no Brasil poderia ter o direito de a criança com base no que ele passou tanto tempo com eles é a coisa mais absurda que eu já ouvi. Então, basicamente, se eu sequestrar uma criança e passar bastante tempo no Brasil com a criança, ele é meu para manter?
Brasil, vá-se o parafuso. Se esta é a lógica que você usa no mais importante das circunstâncias, você é mais um obstáculo do que um amigo.
Se você se lembrar da situação Elian Gonzales, situação que durou alguns meses. Esta BS no Brasil nos últimos anos. O governo enviou ao E.U. Elian de volta para Cuba comunista, porque sabia que ele pertencia a seu pai.
WTF!!!!
I would think that their culture would desire to get a child back to his family as fast as possible, but they are acting TOTALLY against this concept.
This is a FREAKING no-brainer. The father and the mother were cusodial parents, the mom kidnapped the child, and now the child is being held by people who have no right to the child. The father is the parent and the child belongs to him. And the specious argument that this family in Brazil might have a right to the child on the basis that he spent so much time with them is the MOST absurd thing I've ever heard. So, basically, if I kidnap a child and spend enough time in Brazil with the child, he's mine to keep?
Brazil, go screw yourself. If this is the logic you use in the most important of circumstances, you are more of a hindrance than a friend.
If you recall the Elian Gonzales situation, that situation lasted a few months. This BS in Brazil has last YEARS. The US government sent the Elian back to Communist Cuba because we knew he belonged with his father.
And for you Brazilians:
Eles estão em conluio com os raptores de Sean Goldman para mantê-lo longe de seu pai.
WTF!!
Gostaria de pensar que a sua cultura desejaria receber uma criança de volta à sua família o mais rápido possível, mas eles estão agindo totalmente contra este conceito.
Esta é uma FREAKING acéfalo. O pai ea mãe eram pais cusodial, a mãe da criança raptada, e agora a criança está sendo realizada por pessoas que não têm o direito à criança. O pai é o progenitor e da criança pertence a ele. E o argumento capcioso que esta família no Brasil poderia ter o direito de a criança com base no que ele passou tanto tempo com eles é a coisa mais absurda que eu já ouvi. Então, basicamente, se eu sequestrar uma criança e passar bastante tempo no Brasil com a criança, ele é meu para manter?
Brasil, vá-se o parafuso. Se esta é a lógica que você usa no mais importante das circunstâncias, você é mais um obstáculo do que um amigo.
Se você se lembrar da situação Elian Gonzales, situação que durou alguns meses. Esta BS no Brasil nos últimos anos. O governo enviou ao E.U. Elian de volta para Cuba comunista, porque sabia que ele pertencia a seu pai.
Monday, December 7, 2009
This really is enough already.
For heaven's sake, just stop the rabid partisanship.
I cannot have a civil conversation with any Conservative. That does not mean I get into a fight with them. It means that I cannot have a rational discussion about the issues with a Conservative without fear that they'll fly off the handle. Basically, I talk about the things we agree on, and don't let them know about the things we don't agree on, because I know they'll flip out. But the reverse is never true. They spout all sorts of hatred and half-truths about the issues, and I just smile. Why don't I fight back, if my arguments are so good? Because these Conservatives are not speaking from a logical position. If I were to start replying to their arguments they'd just start getting angry and spouting more hatred and half-truths, which are impossible to contradict because they have no basis in logic, and then they would definitely start a REAL argument, not the rational logical kind.
What has pissed off the Conservatives so much? I mean REALLY??? Two guys ran for president, and one of them won fair and square.
The main argument they seem to have is that he's a "socialist", or for the real psychos, that he's a "communist". On what basis do they assert that he's a socialist? Don't give me any BS about "he's stealing money from hard working Americans." King George did a lot of that himself. Oh, so, sorry, he stole the money from our children with their bloated national budgets to pay for a war against a Iraq, on the unfounded basis that Iraq was making WMD's.
And how am I supposed to argue against a rumor, or just utter hate? How am I to refute an assertion that Obama is a Communist? It's impossible. I'd have to basically show all of his public opinions and bills he's written, and point out how these are not communist inspired. But all these lazy, ignorant f*cks have to do is throw out the assertion of him being a communist, and they "win." They win the hearts of those who don't like Obama, and they just confuse everyone else, because, as I said, it is impossible to prove that ANYONE is not a communist. OK, so Henry Kissinger was a commie, and so was Shirly Temple, George W. Bush, my dog, and Captain Kirk. If I'm wrong, prove it.
For those that have at least two working brain cells, please listen to the following.
Republicans have labeled Democrats as "tax and spend." However, Republicans are "borrow and spend." The only reason you don't hear this rebuttal is because Democrats just suck at coining catchy, pejorative terms for the competition. The "borrow and spend" behavior of the Republicans is a true, uncontested fact. They have to be "borrow and spend," because they don't pull in enough tax revenue to pay the bills. You may reply that lower taxes help the economy, and this increases tax income. But exactly when are we supposed to start paying the damn loans back? Low taxes are great, but I think it should be obvious that there has to be a balance between the "tax" and "borrow" philosophies.
"The Democrats borrow just as much...." Yeah, try and prove it. I assert that they don't. Now, go lookup a zillion reports and budgets from the past 40 years or so. But you will also need to lookup who wrote each part of the budget, because the President is not the only one writing the budget. There are a ton of congressmen on both sides of the aisle that put in special interest legislation for their districts and for those who fund their campaigns. Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait...
I cannot have a civil conversation with any Conservative. That does not mean I get into a fight with them. It means that I cannot have a rational discussion about the issues with a Conservative without fear that they'll fly off the handle. Basically, I talk about the things we agree on, and don't let them know about the things we don't agree on, because I know they'll flip out. But the reverse is never true. They spout all sorts of hatred and half-truths about the issues, and I just smile. Why don't I fight back, if my arguments are so good? Because these Conservatives are not speaking from a logical position. If I were to start replying to their arguments they'd just start getting angry and spouting more hatred and half-truths, which are impossible to contradict because they have no basis in logic, and then they would definitely start a REAL argument, not the rational logical kind.
What has pissed off the Conservatives so much? I mean REALLY??? Two guys ran for president, and one of them won fair and square.
The main argument they seem to have is that he's a "socialist", or for the real psychos, that he's a "communist". On what basis do they assert that he's a socialist? Don't give me any BS about "he's stealing money from hard working Americans." King George did a lot of that himself. Oh, so, sorry, he stole the money from our children with their bloated national budgets to pay for a war against a Iraq, on the unfounded basis that Iraq was making WMD's.
And how am I supposed to argue against a rumor, or just utter hate? How am I to refute an assertion that Obama is a Communist? It's impossible. I'd have to basically show all of his public opinions and bills he's written, and point out how these are not communist inspired. But all these lazy, ignorant f*cks have to do is throw out the assertion of him being a communist, and they "win." They win the hearts of those who don't like Obama, and they just confuse everyone else, because, as I said, it is impossible to prove that ANYONE is not a communist. OK, so Henry Kissinger was a commie, and so was Shirly Temple, George W. Bush, my dog, and Captain Kirk. If I'm wrong, prove it.
For those that have at least two working brain cells, please listen to the following.
Republicans have labeled Democrats as "tax and spend." However, Republicans are "borrow and spend." The only reason you don't hear this rebuttal is because Democrats just suck at coining catchy, pejorative terms for the competition. The "borrow and spend" behavior of the Republicans is a true, uncontested fact. They have to be "borrow and spend," because they don't pull in enough tax revenue to pay the bills. You may reply that lower taxes help the economy, and this increases tax income. But exactly when are we supposed to start paying the damn loans back? Low taxes are great, but I think it should be obvious that there has to be a balance between the "tax" and "borrow" philosophies.
"The Democrats borrow just as much...." Yeah, try and prove it. I assert that they don't. Now, go lookup a zillion reports and budgets from the past 40 years or so. But you will also need to lookup who wrote each part of the budget, because the President is not the only one writing the budget. There are a ton of congressmen on both sides of the aisle that put in special interest legislation for their districts and for those who fund their campaigns. Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait...
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Where are the Republican's health care reform ideas?
They don't have any.
They claim they do, but where have they been for the past 17 years?
Their health care reform is for everyone to buy their own insurance and shut the f*ck up. If you don't have a job that provides insurance, then go get one and quit whining.
Yeah, that's a great plan.
Like that stupid revisionist cricket/ant chain mail that so many f*cking idiots like. If you don't know what I'm talking about then here you go.
Do I think people should get a free ride? F*ck no. But not everybody who needs a handup is a sponge. And providing a hand up doesn't make you a socialist. It makes you a caring person.
George H. Bush spoke of a "kinder and gentler" United States, and that's because the f*cking Reps are vicious and uncaring. Not all of them. Just the bulk. Personally, I liked George Sr., but I think George Jr. was an idiot. George Sr. had oodles of political experience. George Jr. rode into Texas governor on his daddy's coat-tails, and then leap-frogged into the presidency because Gore has an awkward personality. Nevermind his DWI (when he was 30 and should have known better) and possible cocaine use, the conservatives voted for him because they can't put 2 and 2 together. Clinton smoked some pot in the 60's (imagine that) so that makes him scum, but a DWI and coke is A-OK, just so long as he's a Republican.
But back on the point. Where are the Reps health-care reform plans? Oh, they have them, you protest. Bullsh*t. They only bring them up when the Dems try to pass health care reform. Otherwise it's "get a job you f*cking losers." Great plan.
Do I agree with the current bill? I don't have any idea what the damn thing says, and I've tried to read it. It's ridiculous. I think they can make it shorter and more comprehensible. But at least they're trying to do something.
If the Reps had their way, you wouldn't get emergency room treatment if you didn't have a way to pay for it. Yeah, that's real compassion. And they'd probably leave you to die if you couldn't pay for any other health care. I suspect that's what Jesus would have done...NOT! F*ckig hypocrites. Save the life of the unborn potential humans, but let the living suffer and die?
I think that businesses would welcome any health care reform. I quit my soul-killing job to seek independent opportunities, and I paid for COBRA for a few months. It cost $500 per month. HOLY SH*T! My company was subsidizing me by about $350 a month? My wife has pretty good insurance she pays for on her own, and it only costs $180/month. But the group that my previous employer had was super expensive. I would think that any public plan would lower their costs.
I think the basic idea of the Dems health care reform proposals is flawed. But so is the whole concept of health insurance. You do realize that it is health insurance that has caused the rise the cost of health care, right? You know, that whole supply/demand thing?
The situation is complicated. Massive dollars provided by insurance provided an INFLATION in the cost of health care, because that's what happens when you have a large supply of something. Yes, dollars can be considered a supply. If you have too many Shamwows to sell and nobody's buying, then the cost goes down. But if you have a limited supply of Shamwows, and everybody wants one and is throwing money at them, then their cost goes up. This is what happened in health care. Basic economics.
But the massive dollars available for medicine, equipment, doctors, and nurses caused an improvement in health care. Pharmaceuticals created new, wonderful drugs because they know they can make a lot of money. Inventors created new equipment to get a piece of the pie. Without the money we wouldn't have the drugs that we b*tch about costing too much.
If everyone has insurance, this will create a shortage in health care. There will be fewer slots available for doctors to see patients, there will be more people buying prescription medicine, more people in the hospital, etc. The costs might actually RISE instead of fall. And the quality might drop, since the system and doctors will be overworked.
What's my bright idea, you may wonder? There are many steps to getting the costs under control.
1) Create more medical schools. Right now you have to have something like a 3.5 GPA to get into medical school. Certainly someone driven to care for people with a 3.2 GPA would give good care. And there are a LOT of smart people that can do a great job as a doctor who don't have a great GPA. The AMA has a stranglehold on the industry, and this causes an unnecessary shortage. Increasing the supply of doctors by 10% would only cause a small reduction in the current income of doctors, but that will drop the cost of doctors. And doctors won't have to work themselves to death.
More medical schools will also increase the number of residents available in training. What's good about this? The current rules limit the number of hours a resident has to work from preposterous to ridiculous. So, those doctors that are giving you or your child emergency care, or cancer care, may have been awake for the past 24 hours. Sleep deprivation causes lapses in judgement and thinking. And of all f*cking people, the doctors should know this. But they put patients are risk because of their flawed culture. They believe that doctors in training must suffer like they did, because it creates good skills and good character. BULLSHIT!!! (Notice I didn't askerisk by profanity. That's how strongly I feel about this stupid belief.) I'm sure a doctor can learn his specialty quite adequately working only 40 hours a week.
Also, I suspect (but this is just my theory) that the cost to governments for providing health care for the uninsured and under-insured would DROP MORE THAN THE COST OF PAYING FOR MORE MEDICAL SCHOOLS.
2) Supplement doctor's malpractice insurance. Doctors bitch that they have to charge such high prices because malpractice insurance is so expensive. I think that this is partly true, but I also think it's partly BS. I know that the malpractice insurance for heart surgeons is close to $100,000/year, but the heart surgeons don't really have to make $250,000/year profit. So, supplement the insurance because it's too expensive, and then they can't hide their extraordinary profits behind this cost.
BTW, why do they make so much money? BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH DOCTORS! Basic economics.
3) Require all health insurance to have at least a $3000 deductible. Sure, they can have one free trip to the doctor per year, but otherwise they should pay a $3000 deductible. Personally, I don't want to have to pay $3000/year to get health care, but if I REALLY needed it I would. That's the point. It would reduce the demand on health care, thus reducing the cost of health care.
4) Have the f*cking government make new medicines and sell them on the open market. What, government competing with private enterprise? You're godd*mn right. We all know medicine is super expensive. And some medicines cannot be produced at a profit. So, logically, a company is not going to make a product it cannot sell at a profit. This isn't greed, it's common sense. If a company cannot make a profit, the company will cease to exist. So, if we want better medicines at a reasonable cost, then the government has to get involved in their production.
5) Have the government pay for extreme, chronic conditions. If you need a new heart, have cancer, or AIDS, it shouldn't bankrupt you. If you have any of these, the deductible should be waved. Let's have some compassion. Nobody can afford the treatment for these conditions, unless they are quite wealthy. This will also help people who are adamently avoiding that deductible from receiving critically important care. If you have the sniffles, then you should pay the $100 for the visit. If you have cancer, we care about you.
6) Give low interest loans to people to pay the deductible.
That's a hell of a lot more than the Reps have offered, and I think it's a hell of a lot more conservative that what's on the table by Dems. But I'd rather have Dem health care reform than none at all.
They claim they do, but where have they been for the past 17 years?
Their health care reform is for everyone to buy their own insurance and shut the f*ck up. If you don't have a job that provides insurance, then go get one and quit whining.
Yeah, that's a great plan.
Like that stupid revisionist cricket/ant chain mail that so many f*cking idiots like. If you don't know what I'm talking about then here you go.
Do I think people should get a free ride? F*ck no. But not everybody who needs a handup is a sponge. And providing a hand up doesn't make you a socialist. It makes you a caring person.
George H. Bush spoke of a "kinder and gentler" United States, and that's because the f*cking Reps are vicious and uncaring. Not all of them. Just the bulk. Personally, I liked George Sr., but I think George Jr. was an idiot. George Sr. had oodles of political experience. George Jr. rode into Texas governor on his daddy's coat-tails, and then leap-frogged into the presidency because Gore has an awkward personality. Nevermind his DWI (when he was 30 and should have known better) and possible cocaine use, the conservatives voted for him because they can't put 2 and 2 together. Clinton smoked some pot in the 60's (imagine that) so that makes him scum, but a DWI and coke is A-OK, just so long as he's a Republican.
But back on the point. Where are the Reps health-care reform plans? Oh, they have them, you protest. Bullsh*t. They only bring them up when the Dems try to pass health care reform. Otherwise it's "get a job you f*cking losers." Great plan.
Do I agree with the current bill? I don't have any idea what the damn thing says, and I've tried to read it. It's ridiculous. I think they can make it shorter and more comprehensible. But at least they're trying to do something.
If the Reps had their way, you wouldn't get emergency room treatment if you didn't have a way to pay for it. Yeah, that's real compassion. And they'd probably leave you to die if you couldn't pay for any other health care. I suspect that's what Jesus would have done...NOT! F*ckig hypocrites. Save the life of the unborn potential humans, but let the living suffer and die?
I think that businesses would welcome any health care reform. I quit my soul-killing job to seek independent opportunities, and I paid for COBRA for a few months. It cost $500 per month. HOLY SH*T! My company was subsidizing me by about $350 a month? My wife has pretty good insurance she pays for on her own, and it only costs $180/month. But the group that my previous employer had was super expensive. I would think that any public plan would lower their costs.
I think the basic idea of the Dems health care reform proposals is flawed. But so is the whole concept of health insurance. You do realize that it is health insurance that has caused the rise the cost of health care, right? You know, that whole supply/demand thing?
The situation is complicated. Massive dollars provided by insurance provided an INFLATION in the cost of health care, because that's what happens when you have a large supply of something. Yes, dollars can be considered a supply. If you have too many Shamwows to sell and nobody's buying, then the cost goes down. But if you have a limited supply of Shamwows, and everybody wants one and is throwing money at them, then their cost goes up. This is what happened in health care. Basic economics.
But the massive dollars available for medicine, equipment, doctors, and nurses caused an improvement in health care. Pharmaceuticals created new, wonderful drugs because they know they can make a lot of money. Inventors created new equipment to get a piece of the pie. Without the money we wouldn't have the drugs that we b*tch about costing too much.
If everyone has insurance, this will create a shortage in health care. There will be fewer slots available for doctors to see patients, there will be more people buying prescription medicine, more people in the hospital, etc. The costs might actually RISE instead of fall. And the quality might drop, since the system and doctors will be overworked.
What's my bright idea, you may wonder? There are many steps to getting the costs under control.
1) Create more medical schools. Right now you have to have something like a 3.5 GPA to get into medical school. Certainly someone driven to care for people with a 3.2 GPA would give good care. And there are a LOT of smart people that can do a great job as a doctor who don't have a great GPA. The AMA has a stranglehold on the industry, and this causes an unnecessary shortage. Increasing the supply of doctors by 10% would only cause a small reduction in the current income of doctors, but that will drop the cost of doctors. And doctors won't have to work themselves to death.
More medical schools will also increase the number of residents available in training. What's good about this? The current rules limit the number of hours a resident has to work from preposterous to ridiculous. So, those doctors that are giving you or your child emergency care, or cancer care, may have been awake for the past 24 hours. Sleep deprivation causes lapses in judgement and thinking. And of all f*cking people, the doctors should know this. But they put patients are risk because of their flawed culture. They believe that doctors in training must suffer like they did, because it creates good skills and good character. BULLSHIT!!! (Notice I didn't askerisk by profanity. That's how strongly I feel about this stupid belief.) I'm sure a doctor can learn his specialty quite adequately working only 40 hours a week.
Also, I suspect (but this is just my theory) that the cost to governments for providing health care for the uninsured and under-insured would DROP MORE THAN THE COST OF PAYING FOR MORE MEDICAL SCHOOLS.
2) Supplement doctor's malpractice insurance. Doctors bitch that they have to charge such high prices because malpractice insurance is so expensive. I think that this is partly true, but I also think it's partly BS. I know that the malpractice insurance for heart surgeons is close to $100,000/year, but the heart surgeons don't really have to make $250,000/year profit. So, supplement the insurance because it's too expensive, and then they can't hide their extraordinary profits behind this cost.
BTW, why do they make so much money? BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH DOCTORS! Basic economics.
3) Require all health insurance to have at least a $3000 deductible. Sure, they can have one free trip to the doctor per year, but otherwise they should pay a $3000 deductible. Personally, I don't want to have to pay $3000/year to get health care, but if I REALLY needed it I would. That's the point. It would reduce the demand on health care, thus reducing the cost of health care.
4) Have the f*cking government make new medicines and sell them on the open market. What, government competing with private enterprise? You're godd*mn right. We all know medicine is super expensive. And some medicines cannot be produced at a profit. So, logically, a company is not going to make a product it cannot sell at a profit. This isn't greed, it's common sense. If a company cannot make a profit, the company will cease to exist. So, if we want better medicines at a reasonable cost, then the government has to get involved in their production.
5) Have the government pay for extreme, chronic conditions. If you need a new heart, have cancer, or AIDS, it shouldn't bankrupt you. If you have any of these, the deductible should be waved. Let's have some compassion. Nobody can afford the treatment for these conditions, unless they are quite wealthy. This will also help people who are adamently avoiding that deductible from receiving critically important care. If you have the sniffles, then you should pay the $100 for the visit. If you have cancer, we care about you.
6) Give low interest loans to people to pay the deductible.
That's a hell of a lot more than the Reps have offered, and I think it's a hell of a lot more conservative that what's on the table by Dems. But I'd rather have Dem health care reform than none at all.
When Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of your party...
your party is seriously screwed up.
Rush Limbaugh is a liar. His bread and butter relies on his ability to enrage his fan base (mainly conservatives/Republicans) and piss off liberals/Democrats.
But there is no way on this earth that he can possibly believe all the rhetoric that he spews. He's spewed it just about every day since at least 1992, and it's always the same.
He just LOVES when a Dem becomes president. I wouldn't doubt he voted for Obama. I'm sure his highest ratings are when the Dems are in control, and his lowest are when the Reps are in control. That is the height of hypocrisy. When you help create the beliefs you villify, you are almost evil.
Nobody is capable of holding such one-sided views. I know many (too many) hard-core conservatives, and I know for a fact that even they hold some moderate views. It cannot be helped. Nobody can think so one-sidedly. Personally, I'm a moderate. I've got some pretty liberal views, a LOT of moderate views, and a surprising number of conservative and VERY conservative views. Why? Because I'm a person that uses my brain to assess the truth and value of the different situations and different point of views.
But Limbaugh mainly operates on hate. He utterly villifies the Democrats. He made Bill Clinton out to be a "great satan" and now he's doing the same with Obama. Congrats, Limbaugh, take your throne next to Hitler, Sadam, and Ahmadinejad. Sure, you spout some American values, since nobody is all bad, but your one huge flaw is your vicious hate mongering. And if you think my comparison to Hitler is a bit extreme, he operated on hate.
Hate is irrational. Sure, I'm jabbing the Republicans in the side to show them their massive hypocrisy, but I'm not into hate. But Hitler was. He built his base on villifying the Jews.
Limbaugh might claim that he doesn't hate the Dems, he just hates their beliefs. That's a LIE. He massacred the character of Bill Clinton, and he's working on Obama with a vengence. Massacring someones character is no way to convince them, or anybody else, that their policies are wrong. Unless you're a f*cking idiot and agree with Limbaugh. Am I villifying Limbaugh? You're godd*mn right I am. He's evil. I'm not saying that because I disagree with his political views. I'm villifying him because he's a villain. He's intentionally creating hatred for people that don't deserve it. He's not just pushing a political point that people disagree with. He's creating evil in the guts of his fans and critics. What does Jesus say about hate? Hmmm. Maybe church-going Limbaugh lovers should rethink their agreement with Limbaugh. But I doubt they will, because many of his fans are a bunch of f*cking idiots.
So, if Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican part, then the Republican party is the party of hate. Don't agree with me? Think I'M evil? Want to kill me and all like me, or forcibly indoctrinate me into your political and religious views? There you go, hater. You and Limbaugh can burn in hell together, you f*cking hypocrites.
Rush Limbaugh is a liar. His bread and butter relies on his ability to enrage his fan base (mainly conservatives/Republicans) and piss off liberals/Democrats.
But there is no way on this earth that he can possibly believe all the rhetoric that he spews. He's spewed it just about every day since at least 1992, and it's always the same.
He just LOVES when a Dem becomes president. I wouldn't doubt he voted for Obama. I'm sure his highest ratings are when the Dems are in control, and his lowest are when the Reps are in control. That is the height of hypocrisy. When you help create the beliefs you villify, you are almost evil.
Nobody is capable of holding such one-sided views. I know many (too many) hard-core conservatives, and I know for a fact that even they hold some moderate views. It cannot be helped. Nobody can think so one-sidedly. Personally, I'm a moderate. I've got some pretty liberal views, a LOT of moderate views, and a surprising number of conservative and VERY conservative views. Why? Because I'm a person that uses my brain to assess the truth and value of the different situations and different point of views.
But Limbaugh mainly operates on hate. He utterly villifies the Democrats. He made Bill Clinton out to be a "great satan" and now he's doing the same with Obama. Congrats, Limbaugh, take your throne next to Hitler, Sadam, and Ahmadinejad. Sure, you spout some American values, since nobody is all bad, but your one huge flaw is your vicious hate mongering. And if you think my comparison to Hitler is a bit extreme, he operated on hate.
Hate is irrational. Sure, I'm jabbing the Republicans in the side to show them their massive hypocrisy, but I'm not into hate. But Hitler was. He built his base on villifying the Jews.
Limbaugh might claim that he doesn't hate the Dems, he just hates their beliefs. That's a LIE. He massacred the character of Bill Clinton, and he's working on Obama with a vengence. Massacring someones character is no way to convince them, or anybody else, that their policies are wrong. Unless you're a f*cking idiot and agree with Limbaugh. Am I villifying Limbaugh? You're godd*mn right I am. He's evil. I'm not saying that because I disagree with his political views. I'm villifying him because he's a villain. He's intentionally creating hatred for people that don't deserve it. He's not just pushing a political point that people disagree with. He's creating evil in the guts of his fans and critics. What does Jesus say about hate? Hmmm. Maybe church-going Limbaugh lovers should rethink their agreement with Limbaugh. But I doubt they will, because many of his fans are a bunch of f*cking idiots.
So, if Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican part, then the Republican party is the party of hate. Don't agree with me? Think I'M evil? Want to kill me and all like me, or forcibly indoctrinate me into your political and religious views? There you go, hater. You and Limbaugh can burn in hell together, you f*cking hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)