[Stryke 9]

So it's somehow equalizing that your vote is worth more than the vote of a guy in New York?


How does that one work?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Also, why should small states with virtually no population get a more of a say for the same number of people than a state like NY or California?

You misunderstand the way the EC works. There's a delegate for (essentially) each Representative in the state and one for each Senator in the state. Every state has equal representation (2 votes each). Every citizen gets equal representation (Representatives are based on equal sized blocks of citizens). That way pretty much everyone gets equal representation.

It doesn't change the fact that the EC is designed to screw over the poeple in favor of the parties. EC votes can't be split within a state, to the best of my knowledge. That's why my vote for President really means very little: my state will almost always fall to the Republican candidate.

[Liberator]

You can't give humans things and expect them to take care of them.  For humans to truly appreciate thing they must earn them.  

The point I'm trying to get across is that there are entirely too many people willing to let someone else make all their decisions for them, even if the decisions don't benefit them in the long run.  That the problem with modern dems/liberals/whoever.  They are willing to whore themselves out to whoever promises them the most votes/money/power.  There are so few men of conscience left in Washington, it makes me sad to think about it.

The main reason the medical system in this country is floundering, is because the caregivers, the doctors and, more importantly, the RNs, LPNs, and PAs, are overworked and way over-regulated, which is what leads to so much burnout in those professions.  Everytime they turn around they've got some ungrateful thus-and-so threatening to sue them.  The goal should be to provide the highest level of care for a patient.  The government should protect the good doctors and nurses from frivolous indictments and should stop the bad ones from practicing.  That should be the limit of the governments involvment.  Awards from malparactice suits should be limited, by law, to a reasonable amount per case, not per complaint.  Medical personel are as human as the rest of us, and can you honestly say that you would volunteer to work a twelve hour shift, then be required to work a second and still be able to think clearly?  It's easy to see how mistakes can be made.  And our response is to treat them like the bastard child and beat them down because they tripped.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Liberator
You can't give humans things and expect them to take care of them.  For humans to truly appreciate thing they must earn them.

And you know this how? My parents have given me plenty of stuff that I didn't earn and I've always taken care of it. Hell, this computer I'm using to post here was a $1,500 gift and I'm damn well taking care of it.

And there's years of stuff that I got during Christmas and didn't earn and still take care of. How do you explain that?

Originally posted by Liberator
The point I'm trying to get across is that there are entirely too many people willing to let someone else make all their decisions for them, even if the decisions don't benefit them in the long run.  That the problem with modern dems/liberals/whoever.  They are willing to whore themselves out to whoever promises them the most votes/money/power.  There are so few men of conscience left in Washington, it makes me sad to think about it.

Guess what, Lib? Many of those men of no conscience are Republicans, none of whom I voted for and whom I'm intent on getting out of the White House and Congress when I vote in November. As for those who "are willing to whore themselves out to whoever promises them the most votes/money/power," how is that different from all the corporate lobbyists who throw money at Republican politicians in order to buy political access? Vice President Cheney STILL hasn't released any info on who was on his energy taskforce, even though environmentalists have clamored to be involved in federal energy policy, something that directly involves the health of the environment. Could it be that Cheney doesn't want this info revealed because he's afraid of people finding out that he whored himself out to the energy companies who contributed to his and Bush's campaign?

Originally posted by Liberator
The main reason the medical system in this country is floundering, is because the caregivers, the doctors and, more importantly, the RNs, LPNs, and PAs, are overworked and way over-regulated, which is what leads to so much burnout in those professions.  Everytime they turn around they've got some ungrateful thus-and-so threatening to sue them.  The goal should be to provide the highest level of care for a patient.  The government should protect the good doctors and nurses from frivolous indictments and should stop the bad ones from practicing.  That should be the limit of the governments involvment.  Awards from malparactice suits should be limited, by law, to a reasonable amount per case, not per complaint.  Medical personel are as human as the rest of us, and can you honestly say that you would volunteer to work a twelve hour shift, then be required to work a second and still be able to think clearly? It's easy to see how mistakes can be made.  And our response is to treat them like the bastard child and beat them down because they tripped.

This one's a touchy subject. All I know is that people have been clamoring about "frivolous lawsuits" when the system is already designed to weed out frivolous claims. A claim is frivolous only if there is no question that the doctor acted properly and no harm was done. If a claim of medical malpractice can't stand on the merits, the judge throws it out and dismisses it before it ever goes to trial. BUT if there are facts to support the assertion that maybe the doctor did screw up, for whatever reason, then the case goes to trial. That's what trials are designed for: to find out the facts of the case and find out the truth. If a case looks suspicious but the court determines that the doctor did nothing wrong, then no money is awarded. If a case gets so far as to go to trial, then there is a question of fact of whether the doctor is at fault. If the court has to investigate to solve a question, then by definition the case is NOT FRIVOLOUS.

How many frivolous lawsuits are there? I've been hearing people clamoring about frivolous lawsuits for years, but has anyone EVER done a study about how many there are? What percentage of all lawsuits are frivolous compared to how many are valid? (If more than 1% of all lawsuits are frivolous, I'll be very surprised.) Why the push to cap awards when that will do NOTHING to prevent false claims? How the hell will that work? All that will do is to shaft people with valid injuries and deny them a fair payment for their suffering inflicted by incompetent doctors.

The problem is the insurance companies who keep raising the insurance rates and screwing over the good competent doctors and their patients.

And, Lib, my best friend is a doctor, so I know how tough and long the hours can be. But all doctors are trained to call for assistance if they are so exhausted as to be in over their heads during an operation. If they don't call for assistance when they really need it, then that's a mistake in judgment they have to pay for, ESPECIALLY when it costs a patient his life or being maimed for life.

[Stryke 9]

Su: Though the proportion of genuine frivolous lawsuits is indeed blown out of all proportion like anything else that newsmen get their hands on (can't blame 'em, really, they're usually pretty funny stories), litigiousness in this country is quite plainly on the rise and it's practically a knee-jerk reaction to sue for any percieved wrongdoing with much of the populace now. One can see this pretty much every day- and actually, I and my family have been threatened with lawsuits more than once, and we're not exactly prime targets.


What stupid lawsuits have to do with the medical profession in particular isn't at all clear. There's no real rising trend of malpractice suits, and the ratio of bad suits to ones where there was some genuine crime involved are, I'd expect, about the same as in any other category. In short, Lib's just talking out of his ass, and whether he got those ass-words from someone else and simply passes them on unaware of their anal origins due to an unwillingness to do research or whether they came from his own ass doesn't really matter.


Lib: Tell that last bit to the guy who's heart surgery gets buggered up by some overpaid twat with a few degrees. He's dead now, or at best crippled for life, with minimal recourse- how does that even compare to the potential loss of some money and prestige? The fact is, doctors are paid huge amounts of money for their services, and we entrust them with our lives. Generally, when there's a genuine case of malpractice, it's not just some innocent "oops", someone's been made sick or killed by another person's failure to do their job. When there's an unjustified suit... well, fine, yeah, it's harmful to the defendant but nobody's really suggested a way to cut back on those without letting more cases of genuine malpractice go unpunished. And, moan how you like about the poor oppressed doctors in their hundred-thousand-dollar villas driving a new car every year (which, actually, is a microcosm of how the fairly small-fry doctor in my family lives, if anything I'm understating), letting people get away with murder is one hell of a lot worse than a coupla loonies trying to sue because they don't like the taste of aspirin. It's well and good to believe in things like "The government should protect the good doctors and nurses from frivolous indictments and should stop the bad ones from practicing."- hell, it's nice to believe everyone can and should live in a magical fairy castle in the sky made out of marshmallows and radium and never have to work again but all be bajillionaires anyway- doesn't mean it's gonna happen, and saying **** like that doesn't do anything towards making it happen. Nobody on any party has done anything creative in that respect, Reagan or anybody else. Mostly, mucking around in that field, like so many, has just ****ed things up worse. And, it being the US government, there's practically no way to un**** what's been ****ed, so **** just piles up higher and higher and higher.

[karajorma]

The reason why the American health service scored so poorly is cause of the stupid health insurance system that America has.
It's obviously a pointless, stupid system that means that anyone unable to afford health insurance gets crappy health care.

Every single country in the top 10 had a socialist policy involving some sort of national health service that was paid for by taxes (or in the case of the gulf states by revenues from oil).

[Zarax]

Well, public systems for the basic services are the best way...
You cannot place things such as your health in the hands of greedy privates...

[Flipside]

My privates should be left well alone

But yes, England is a perfect example of what happens when you turn to corporations to take care of services without taking proper precautions.

Rail : Shot to hell
BT : Charges over 800% of what it spends. Poor service maintenance.
Power : Did a little better but still poor maintenance + cut-throat techniques (cutting off power to 87 year old women in the middle of December because they were 3 days late getting their bill paid, like they did to my Nan).

This is because Corporations are most intent on getting money for Shareholders whilst spending as little money on providing maintenance and service as possible.

The current policy of the British Government is 'Don't look at us, blame them!'.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by mikhael

You misunderstand the way the EC works. There's a delegate for (essentially) each Representative in the state and one for each Senator in the state. Every state has equal representation (2 votes each). Every citizen gets equal representation (Representatives are based on equal sized blocks of citizens). That way pretty much everyone gets equal representation.

It doesn't change the fact that the EC is designed to screw over the poeple in favor of the parties. EC votes can't be split within a state, to the best of my knowledge. That's why my vote for President really means very little: my state will almost always fall to the Republican candidate.

Really tiny states actually have a bit of an advantage, since their is actually a set minimum for the number of Representatives in a state.

[mikhael]

Yes. That minimum number of Representatives for any US State is 1. I suspect, however, you mean "very underpopulated states", not "very small states". Rhode Island and Providence Plantations has 2 representatives, and it is the smallest state. Alaska, one of the largest states, only has 1.

Given the population required to have exactly one Representative in the House, the constituents in the Congressional district in question get only a very small fraction of extra representation.

[Rictor]

I recently saw a new documentary called The Corporation, which examines of the issues talked about here. Basically, it examines the corporation and the impact it has on our society. Since, as someone mentioned earlier, the corporation is defined as a legal "person", then the question is asked, would that "person" be diagnosed as a psychopath, were the same guidelines as when diagnosing humans applied . Quite shockingly, yes.

Too bad its ony showing in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa at the moment. Really interesting movie, and you can't help walk out of the theatre slightly changed. Even I did, and I had my bull**** filter on high the whole time. I thought, though you may disagree if you see it, though I doubt it, that the pro-corporation side was given the chance to give their side of the story. Various economists, CEOs and business-men voiced their opinions on the matter, though I thought it was a pertty lame defence they mounted.

Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore (though not directed by him), Howard Zinn, Naomi Klien and other (most are less well known) make an appearance. This cast may either get you interested or turn you off, depends on who you are.

www.thecorporation.tv

/pimp

edit: ooh, just checked. It appears that it has started showing in many more Canadian cities, and even more (to the point where it will be showing in almost every major citiy) will be starting in February. I had hoped it would get a wider sceening, and so it has.

[mikhael]

In the late 1800s (or was it the early 1900s? I can't recall) Ambrose Bierce defined the term 'corporation' as an instrument designed to grant individual profit/benefit without individual responsibility.

Any developmental psychologist will tell you that power and profit without responsibility leads to socially and sociopathically retarded individuals.

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by Liberator
Today is Ronald Reagan's 93rd birthday.  I ask you to say a prayer for him, Mrs. Nancy and their family when you can, as we know he is suffering from advanced Alzheimer's Disease, and as such is living the final years of his life with nearly no memory of his wife, family, friends, or life.


For those too young to remember or too busy sticking you heads in the sand, Ronald Reagan was President of the United States during the decade of the 1980s.  He led the free world to victory over the Soviet during the Cold War which ended in that decade.

RR Info

Agreed! Best. President. Ever.

Thank you Mr. Reagan.

[Rictor]

Yeah, I read your sig;)

The topic of social responsibility is brought up in the film, and I remeber one comment, made by a Nobel laureate economist. His opinion is that you can no more expect social responsibility from a corporation than you can from a building.

Another interviewee, a CEO I believe, bring up the scenario where everything on the Earth: water, air, land, animals etc, is privately owned. He seems to think that it would benefit humanity, as a natural extension of the capitalist system. That part, and the prospect that it can actually, possibly occur, scared the **** out of me.

Its not so far fetched. Corporations already own the patents of human and animal DNA, and it is now legal to patent life. So, 20 years from now, when you have a genetically-enhanced horse, you will be paying royalities to Monstanto or whoever.

The recent coup in Bolivia was partly caused by the fact that the water (including rain) in Bolivia had been privatized by a US company, Bechtel, and people were no longer allowed to gather rainwater. They had to pay up, which sometimes amounted to 1/4 of their monthly earning just for water. Sufficed to say, they didn't much like the situation. The intersting thing is that as far as I understand, the move to privatize Bolovia's water had been pushed by the US government as a condition for future trade agreements.

/rant

[Bobboau]

hmm, that sounds sort of like the thing England did with salt in India

[vyper]

[q]England [/q]

Britain. We're all equally empire builders over here

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Beowulf
Agreed! Best. President. Ever.

Thank you Mr. Reagan.

Gee, I dunno, I thought Abraham Lincoln was the best American president ever, considering how he is the man most responsible for America surviving the time it was in the greatest danger of being destroyed (i.e. the Civil War). Reagan definitely had his good points, but I can't call him the best president ever.

(It's kinda strange that a few people are still pissed at Lincoln because he destroyed the Confederacy...)

[mikhael]

It boggles my mind too, Su.

Down here, people proudly fly the Confederate battle standard AND proclaim their "patriotism". What I don't get is how these people can take pride in the largest single group of traitors and turncoats in the history of the nation, and still claim to be patriots. It seems to me, when the South took up arms against the federal government (the North), they fell under the classic definition of 'traitor'. Their descendents are proud of this stuff and yet somehow consider people like me 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic' for not blindly following the dictates of our appointed (not elected) leader.

[Corsair]

Explanation for the behavior of the South: Georgia was a dumping ground for English criminals before the American Revolution.
Explanation for the behavior of Australians: Australia was a dumping ground for English criminals after the American Revolution.

:D:D

[mikhael]

YUO == MORON

More than just Georgia was a dumping ground for english criminals. Australia got very, VERY few of the criminals, and only small parts of it were used for penal colonies.

A quick trip to the history department of the local university (not your local high school) is in order.