LGP Political Discussion Thread

[cs6687]

doublem, I'll write Obama and tell him to send the Gitmo detainees to your home.

[doublem]

doublem, I'll write Obama and tell him to send the Gitmo detainees to your home.

A federal prison would do, and why can't they go there again?

[doublem]

So you think it is right to torture people, leave them in Gitmo for months or years becasue they aren't citizens?

no, but the founders of america don't make the rules for the entire world. Just the country they founded. People in england can't have fire-arms. That violates our bill of rights not theirs.

Yes, but they are on our soil, that is what I mean when I say it applies to all people, our justice system applies even if they aren't citizens.

[cs6687]

So you think it is right to torture people, leave them in Gitmo for months or years becasue they aren't citizens?

no, but the founders of america don't make the rules for the entire world. Just the country they founded. People in england can't have fire-arms. That violates our bill of rights not theirs.

Yes, but they are on our soil, that is what I mean when I say it applies to all people, our justice system applies even if they aren't citizens.

Then why are the police catching illegal immigrants hiding in vans and working in restaurants? I'm sure it's not for recreation.

[doublem]

They aren't the same, illegal immigrants that broke the law by entering the country aren't the same as someone that is being held in Gitmo for years. The illegals should be deported, Should we be able to steal from the illegals, or torture if our laws don't apply?

[tikidoc]

Fun fact: Canada and Great Britain, two country's whose health-care systems people love to bash, both have higher life-expectancy rates than the U.S.

Anyone interested in an analysis of life expectancy and infant mortality numbers please read this.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Com ... ealth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I realize that this is from a conservative think tank but a lot of the points made seem solid and I think it adds to our debate here. I've often questioned the methods used across differing countries.

Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system because it fails the first criterion of assuming interaction with the health care system. For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," in a car accident or of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives. If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system. Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.

Good article. As a perinatologist, I hear all the time about how poorly we rank in infant mortality, but as the article points out, every country calculates infant mortality differently, and in the US, if it's born alive, it counts, even if it is of a pre-viable gestational age. Most consider viability to be about 24 weeks gestation, between 23 and 24 weeks is sort of a gray zone. But a kid is born at 16 weeks with a heartbeat, it counts in our statistics, regardless of the fact that it is 2 months from potential viability. Most countries do not do this. Comparing apples to oranges, as a result, it looks like our care is poor when it is not.

[Tico Rick]

Fun fact: Canada and Great Britain, two country's whose health-care systems people love to bash, both have higher life-expectancy rates than the U.S.

FYI: This has a lot more to do with lifestyles than healthcare. Who are the fattest and most unhealthy people around? Easy, US.

I take care of myself, eat well, and exercise. I also know that I need to watch what I eat because of cholesterol problems in my family. I do this so I don't have to pay for it later. I don't like having to take care of someone who didn't take care of themselves. Thousands are on the track to type 2 diabetes. Can they prevent it? Yes. Do they? no. I drink a lot. If I need a liver transplant later, do you feel that you are responsible to pay for it? I would hope not; that's my fault. There are a lot of unpreventable problems that can occur, but one of the main problems is that a lot of things that are preventable are not being prevented.

Your argument, that people need health care only because they don't take care of themselves, doesn't wash. Lots of health-conscious people develop cancer.

[Tico Rick]

Anyone interested in an analysis of life expectancy and infant mortality numbers please read this.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Com ... ealth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I realize that this is from a conservative think tank but a lot of the points made seem solid and I think it adds to our debate here. I've often questioned the methods used across differing countries.

Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system because it fails the first criterion of assuming interaction with the health care system. For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," in a car accident or of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives. If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system. Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.

Good article. As a perinatologist, I hear all the time about how poorly we rank in infant mortality, but as the article points out, every country calculates infant mortality differently, and in the US, if it's born alive, it counts, even if it is of a pre-viable gestational age. Most consider viability to be about 24 weeks gestation, between 23 and 24 weeks is sort of a gray zone. But a kid is born at 16 weeks with a heartbeat, it counts in our statistics, regardless of the fact that it is 2 months from potential viability. Most countries do not do this. Comparing apples to oranges, as a result, it looks like our care is poor when it is not.

All of this begs the question, how can the efficacy of a health care system be measured?

[tikidoc]

All of this begs the question, how can the efficacy of a health care system be measured?

I don't know if there is a reliable way. It certainly is not as simple as looking at 2 numbers, infant mortality and life expectancy but those are frequently quoted statistics that are used to make the point that our care is substandard. I was merely making the point that we are criticized for our low ranking in infant mortality, but the way that this is calculated in the US falsely elevates our numbers compared to most countries.

[bh]

All of this begs the question, how can the efficacy of a health care system be measured?

I don't know if there is a reliable way. It certainly is not as simple as looking at 2 numbers, infant mortality and life expectancy but those are frequently quoted statistics that are used to make the point that our care is substandard. I was merely making the point that we are criticized for our low ranking in infant mortality, but the way that this is calculated in the US falsely elevates our numbers compared to most countries.

Well as the article states, there are three criterion to have meaningful numbers. Infant mortality is close to meeting all three except that not all countries use the same standards in determining their infant mortality rate.

Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations.

[Guinness]

So, wait a tick... Why are some rights more important and thus inviolate than others? Some hold that the civil liberties that Bush made encroachments against (even if they did not impact you directly, the dam has been cracked... expect government to exploit that crack in the years to come, as they have been for decades) are sacrosanct, but personal property rights and individual liberties are just means to a greater, common end. The others hold that the personal property Obama is oogling (even IF they aren't taking it *all* now, expect government to exploit the crack in the years to come, as they have been for decades) is paramount, but civil liberties are to be dispensed with at the first sign of "danger".

I think I may be getting it, by golly... how selfish of me, and other people, too, to cling so rigidly to my civil liberties and personal property when such a nebulous ambiguity as the "general welfare" is at stake!? How childish of me to think of big brother looking in on me, you know, just to make sure I'm on the up-and-up as some kind of violation? How ridiculous to expect to maintain full possession of the hard-earned fruits of my labor when "the people" are "in need". Of what value are my civil liberties when "the people" are "in danger"?

I must have been half-mad to assume that maybe it's not my civil liberties that need revised, but perhaps our foreign policy. I must have been off my rocker thinking that a system that respects the rights of people to succeed OR FAIL according to their own means so long as they respect the same rights of others would be preferrable to asking big brother to put his gun to your head and take your property on account of my "need".

Yes. Yes, I have it now. I've learned to stop worrying and love the government!

[pittsoccer33]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_ ... onsultants" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

several consulting/marketing firms tied to the white house are making millions off the healthcare debate. I have no problem with this, but I assume everyone who thinks we went to war in Iraq to make Dick Cheney and Halliburton rich should be livid.

[shafnutz05]

So, wait a tick... Why are some rights more important and thus inviolate than others? Some hold that the civil liberties that Bush made encroachments against (even if they did not impact you directly, the dam has been cracked... expect government to exploit that crack in the years to come, as they have been for decades) are sacrosanct, but personal property rights and individual liberties are just means to a greater, common end. The others hold that the personal property Obama is oogling (even IF they aren't taking it *all* now, expect government to exploit the crack in the years to come, as they have been for decades) is paramount, but civil liberties are to be dispensed with at the first sign of "danger".

I think I may be getting it, by golly... how selfish of me, and other people, too, to cling so rigidly to my civil liberties and personal property when such a nebulous ambiguity as the "general welfare" is at stake!? How childish of me to think of big brother looking in on me, you know, just to make sure I'm on the up-and-up as some kind of violation? How ridiculous to expect to maintain full possession of the hard-earned fruits of my labor when "the people" are "in need". Of what value are my civil liberties when "the people" are "in danger"?

I must have been half-mad to assume that maybe it's not my civil liberties that need revised, but perhaps our foreign policy. I must have been off my rocker thinking that a system that respects the rights of people to succeed OR FAIL according to their own means so long as they respect the same rights of others would be preferrable to asking big brother to put his gun to your head and take your property on account of my "need".

Yes. Yes, I have it now. I've learned to stop worrying and love the government!

This

[Guinness]

This

If you really do agree - and I mean this sincerely - read this bit again:

I must have been half-mad to assume that maybe it's not my civil liberties that need revised, but perhaps our foreign policy.

...then go re-read what you wrote in another thread about "collateral damage" (read: innocent human beings) who are misfortunate enough to be at the same funeral as a Taliban or al Qaeda that we've targeted.

[shafnutz05]

I sincerely do agree....and again, I would be the first person to agree with the fact that if we did in fact target a completely innocent wedding and blow it to pieces, we are literally destroying our image abroad and making a heck of a lot more people hate us...absolutely. I am just withholding judgment until I see all the facts...I don't exactly trust Alertnet as a reputable news source.

And I think you misread my post...I never said anything about it being ok to kill innocent civilians to hit legitimate targets....but where do you draw the line. A popular tactic insurgents/extremists like to use is building their labs/bunkers/HQ under a building full of civilians like a hospital. I, for one, would never be able to push that button authorizing a strike.

I am not advocating blowing up a wedding with 300 people in order to kill one extremist. Now if 60% of the people in that wedding are extremist fighters, including several high-value targets? Then the question becomes much more difficult (and again, I would NEVER want to have to make that decision).

[Guinness]

I don't believe it's a question of whether or not we should target weddings or funerals, but whether or not we should be over there at all. We need to take a very honest look at our foreign policy since the end of World War II and ask ourselves how fruitful it has been. I'm not one to say that we're to blame for September 11th. The perpetrators alone are guilty. But it's to be completely obtuse to not see that our foreign policy has borne some pretty rotten fruit. They don't "hate us for our freedom"... oh maybe some do, but there's more to it than that. Our actions have conseqences.

Our government - under Bush and still now under Obama - has refused consider this. Iraq and Afghanistan are nation-building, imperial wars. We've no intention whatever of captuing bin Laden. He's too good of a marketing campaign. We're still hell-bent on maintaining and expanding our foreign empire, and it will be as much a factor in our undoing as the idiotic domestic policies we're pursuing.

[PensFanInDC]

Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Ages-America ... 825&sr=8-6

and the second part:

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Ages-America ... 825&sr=8-1

We are in a downfall that cannot be stopped (when compared to previous civilizations). We are headed for a world changing shift in power and (I believe) there is nothing that is going to stop it.

Note: These are not Christian books. I know some of you are thinking that. They are socioeconimc commentary.

[shafnutz05]

I don't believe it's a question of whether or not we should target weddings or funerals, but whether or not we should be over there at all. We need to take a very honest look at our foreign policy since the end of World War II and ask ourselves how fruitful it has been. I'm not one to say that we're to blame for September 11th. The perpetrators alone are guilty. But it's to be completely obtuse to not see that our foreign policy has borne some pretty rotten fruit. They don't "hate us for our freedom"... oh maybe some do, but there's more to it than that. Our actions have conseqences.

Our government - under Bush and still now under Obama - has refused consider this. Iraq and Afghanistan are nation-building, imperial wars. We've no intention whatever of captuing bin Laden. He's too good of a marketing campaign. We're still hell-bent on maintaining and expanding our foreign empire, and it will be as much a factor in our undoing as the idiotic domestic policies we're pursuing.

Guinness, I agree with you in terms of the Iraq war...that was an imperialistic war, no question about it. That was NOT the time to take out Hussein and destabilize the region. But I have to respectfully disagree regarding Afghanistan. That was the heart of the al-Qaeda/Islamic extremism movement, and we had a good reason to go in there. I just wish we would have focused harder there, and not got distracted by the blowhard in Baghdad.

[Geezer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The latest chicanery from the bestest, transparentest , honestest administration in U.S. history. Could look up and paste the buddy boy millions story involving Emmanuel and the car czar but it's unrelated to health care.

[JoseCuervo]

Fun fact: Canada and Great Britain, two country's whose health-care systems people love to bash, both have higher life-expectancy rates than the U.S.

FYI: This has a lot more to do with lifestyles than healthcare. Who are the fattest and most unhealthy people around? Easy, US.

I take care of myself, eat well, and exercise. I also know that I need to watch what I eat because of cholesterol problems in my family. I do this so I don't have to pay for it later. I don't like having to take care of someone who didn't take care of themselves. Thousands are on the track to type 2 diabetes. Can they prevent it? Yes. Do they? no. I drink a lot. If I need a liver transplant later, do you feel that you are responsible to pay for it? I would hope not; that's my fault. There are a lot of unpreventable problems that can occur, but one of the main problems is that a lot of things that are preventable are not being prevented.

Your argument, that people need health care only because they don't take care of themselves, doesn't wash. Lots of health-conscious people develop cancer.

I never said that's the only way. Thanks for reading.

[Sarcastic]

Guinness, I agree with you in terms of the Iraq war...that was an imperialistic war, no question about it. That was NOT the time to take out Hussein and destabilize the region. But I have to respectfully disagree regarding Afghanistan. That was the heart of the al-Qaeda/Islamic extremism movement, and we had a good reason to go in there. I just wish we would have focused harder there, and not got distracted by the blowhard in Baghdad.

But we didn't go there to get Bin Laden. We went there to build a gas pipeline and a few bases to guard it. I agree, going to Afghanistan was the right thing to do, just that our gov. wasn't truthful about our goals there. I would have liked to see 150,000 troops over there right away. We didn't really want to catch Bin Laden, did we. We probably could have never attacked Iraq if we got him. Terrorism would be "over".

[Ron`]

Fun fact: Canada and Great Britain, two country's whose health-care systems people love to bash, both have higher life-expectancy rates than the U.S.

Maybe that has to do with our largely sedate populous who would rather sit at home and be provided for. While they essentially embalm themselves to death via alcohol, prescription drugs or just pure narcotics? I have yet to see a study that covers that aspect of what we all see everyday on a daily basis.

These are the numbers we are talking about when we compare health systems, not the brown numbers tossed around at will by our supposed representation. If you don't think this care taker mentality has not aided in the problem, then you are kidding yourself.

Get off your couch, put whatever it is that you are currently using to get through the day down, and find away to scratch out a living. That's the message that will be coming shortly when a complete collapse occurs.

[Bob McKenzie]

doublem, I'll write Obama and tell him to send the Gitmo detainees to your home.

A federal prison would do, and why can't they go there again?

The second you start putting these guys on US soil in federal prison is the day you invite the holy war to come to the US. All the suicide bombers and plans for mass attacks will then be focused on taking place within the US to make a major statement.

I don't know about you but I don't want these guys on US soil.

[Ron`]

It's not that they are against government run health care, it's the reasons they are against it, death panels, illegals will get coverage, private insurances will go out of business, socialism, which aren't based on facts or evidence, if people have problems with government run health care that's fine, but a lot of what I have been hearing is nonsense. And the public OPTION isn't a government take over, it is simple an option.

Why do you have so much faith that the government can run an efficient, successful health care system (not even getting into the how are we going to pay for it question)?

Because the government has successfully run two (Medicare and Medicaid) for the past 44 years?

Both of which are likely to go under complete reform and reduction of benefits, much like social security. All due to mismanagement and complete stealing/raiding by the same government. What exactly is your point here?

[Bob McKenzie]

Why do you have so much faith that the government can run an efficient, successful health care system (not even getting into the how are we going to pay for it question)?

Because the government has successfully run two (Medicare and Medicaid) for the past 44 years?

Both of which are likely to go under complete reform and reduction of benefits, much like social security. All due to mismanagement and complete stealing/raiding by the same government. What exactly is your point here?

Exactly my point. People who haven't worked in the government don't understand how they operate. If you want something to be screwed up or operate with complete inefficiency, let the government do it. If you want an organization to get back to you in an untimely and uncaring fashion, that's the government for you.