Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
LasraelLarson

Have you voted? ;)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

I heard many say Ireland, can't say I heard anyone say Canada? I have applied for an Irish passport, I qualify through grandparents, mostly just to beat queues at airports so I can still use the "in the EU queue"

 

25 minutes ago, Doro said:

Oh you missed out on all the fun!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-result-brexit-moving-to-canada_uk_576d1798e4b08d2c56390720

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36730174

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/uk-eu-brexit-vote-move-to-canada-1.3651308

They're very passionate about a lot of things, those on the far left, but they just aren't keen to actually put it into practice.

Lena Dunham wanted to move to Canada...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/11/lena-dunham-blames-self-hating-white-women-violent-privilege-trump-victory/

Canada needs a wall.

 

Edit: Don Cherry is something of a Canadian icon... can't explain him really as you would have to have watched him for 40 years or so.

Quote

The left wing kook entertainers and the left wing weirdo’s in the media in the US have said if Trump wins the presidency they will move to Canada. Please, we have enough of these type here now

From this article: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/10/no-thanks-lena-dunham-canadians-tell-american-celebrities-to-stay-home

He is also a sharp dressed man... https://www.google.ca/search?q=don+cherry&biw=1920&bih=1093&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGlvOeyKHQAhVE5SYKHdN8BFIQiR4ImQE#tbm=isch&q=don+cherry+suits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fittybolger said:

Funny you should mention it, Fitty.

http://brickingitforcanada.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bendin said:

As far as the on-going debate you two are having over the ACA and it's struggling status.  When you define something as a basic/fundamental need with a legal bare minimum then turn around and let cost be driven in part or in whole by free market forces you are an idiot as you've just created a cluster fuck.  It is  either a basic service/requirement with a floor/ceiling price range, or a supply/demand driven market.  Doing both makes it a POS bit of legislation that won't ever work right.  And that's in an industry with fairly tight margins and limited fraud/waist issues, none of which can be ascribed to the US medical industry where a procedure in one locale would cost 1-10k while one county over the same procedure with the same specialist costs 20-60k.  We won't even go into drug pricing.

 

If the ACA had been implemented as a straight up entitlement system it could have worked relatively painlessly.  Or conversely actively implemented measures that addressed inflated cost drivers.  In either case it's future would be more assured.  As it's written?  probably not long for this world due to simple economic forces and basic human nature regardless of DC's efforts.  Insurance providers aren't pulling out of the market as a gimmick or fad.

That's what a lot of the Republicans saw a mile away, and why most fought it.

IMO, we should have had government ran hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies that are free to use but sustained by taxes.  That would create a baseline that the for-profit hospitals can work from, while also getting costs down (because insurance isn't needed in the government run stuff), while also not turning insurance into an unusable mess.

However, the insurance lobby would have never let that fly - which is why the ACA is the giant cluster it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lies work. Simple. 

I don't pretend to have a very deep knowledge of America. Instinctively I tend to believe the facts, as told by people of authority on subjects my knowledge is not deep or detailed. Until they are proven liars of course. 

In his first words as President Elect, Trump boasted that his meeting with Obama was scheduled for 10-15 minutes and lasted almost an hour and a half. I deduced from it, that they went along famously, way better that expected, and was filled with hope for the future.

Checked this "fact" as well as I could. Not going to pay attention to this pathological liar's saliva dripping any more, but I sure understand how it works with people "en masse". It works like a charm. 

America is a great country - it survived an imbecile in office, it will survive a psycho. Not so sure about the rest of the world.  

Getting away form this topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's what a lot of the Republicans saw a mile away, and why most fought it.

IMO, we should have had government ran hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies that are free to use but sustained by taxes.  That would create a baseline that the for-profit hospitals can work from, while also getting costs down (because insurance isn't needed in the government run stuff), while also not turning insurance into an unusable mess.

However, the insurance lobby would have never let that fly - which is why the ACA is the giant cluster it is.

The issue with US healthcare is that it's just another facet of deeply engrained capitalism. If you make a few public hospitals for the poor, while the rich use the private ones, you end up with investors looking more at the private hospitals because they can squeeze more money out of it. The doctors all prefer the private ones because they can get paid more. You end up with a collapsing public health system (just like here in the UK with the NHS) that can't take the strain, as more and more professionals leave it for greener pastures. It's a snowball effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doro said:

The issue with US healthcare is that it's just another facet of deeply engrained capitalism. If you make a few public hospitals for the poor, while the rich use the private ones, you end up with investors looking more at the private hospitals because they can squeeze more money out of it. The doctors all prefer the private ones because they can get paid more. You end up with a collapsing public health system (just like here in the UK with the NHS) that can't take the strain, as more and more professionals leave it for greener pastures. It's a snowball effect.

That may not be a bad thing because too many got into the industry for the money, and many doctors make like 100k/year (or more).

The salaries of the medical profession are half the problem, as each medical personnel is extremely expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jedy2 said:

America is a great country - it survived an imbecile in office, it will survive a psycho. Not so sure about the rest of the world.  

That's a problem for the rest of the world, not us.

We're not THAT powerful, nor are the other countries that weak...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's what a lot of the Republicans saw a mile away, and why most fought it.

IMO, we should have had government ran hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies that are free to use but sustained by taxes.  That would create a baseline that the for-profit hospitals can work from, while also getting costs down (because insurance isn't needed in the government run stuff), while also not turning insurance into an unusable mess.

However, the insurance lobby would have never let that fly - which is why the ACA is the giant cluster it is.

People generally don't like that plan because a government agency can waste more money than a for-profit agency would fork off as profits.

Plus a government agency cannot have competition but a for-profit company can. Not right now, but theoretically.

Another big problem I see is that many healthcare companies, the hospitals, the landlords and the insurances are all separate companies that should haggle with each other. But at the end of the shareholder chain you often find the same owning parties or individuals that hold share in more than one or all of those people in the chain. It isn't in their interest to crack down on the respective supplier's prices since they also own parts of that supplier.

That is particular bad when is comes to hospital and hospital ground landlords. This is a big issue in the U.S. Although hospitals are not run by the government in e.g. Germany the ground they are standing on is usually owned by the people. Driving up lease cost in the former scenario is bad enough if the hospital was fighting back. But if the hospital and the landlord company are owned by the same people then why would they? They just pass the cost on to the consumer.

Obviously hospitals in the larger cities can pretty much never move house. There isn't even suitable space when you ignore whether it is occupied or not. Cost of a move with all the equipment and the months-long disruption of service/income is also prohibitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Darmokk said:

People generally don't like that plan because a government agency can waste more money than a for-profit agency would fork off as profits.

Plus a government agency cannot have competition but a for-profit company can. Not right now, but theoretically.

Another big problem I see is that many healthcare companies, the hospitals, the landlords and the insurances are all separate companies that should haggle with each other. But at the end of the shareholder chain you often find the same owning parties or individuals that hold share in more than one or all of those people in the chain. It isn't in their interest to crack down on the respective supplier's prices since they also own parts of that supplier.

That is particular bad when is comes to hospital and hospital ground landlords. This is a big issue in the U.S. Although hospitals are not run by the government in e.g. Germany the ground they are standing on is usually owned by the people. Driving up lease cost in the former scenario is bad enough if the hospital was fighting back. But if the hospital and the landlord company are owned by the same people then why would they? They just pass the cost on to the consumer.

Obviously hospitals in the larger cities can pretty much never move house. There isn't even suitable space when you ignore whether it is occupied or not. Cost of a move with all the equipment and the months-long disruption of service/income is also prohibitive.

And a great many of the hospitals are technical are regarded as non-profits for tax purposes, yet their real world behavior doesn't match their tax status.

There's a lot of problems in the medical area that need solving; however, Obamacare wasn't a good solution because it just created so many additional problems without addressing the issue of the costs of healthcare.  That's something insurance tends to hide because that's how insurance works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

And a great many of the hospitals are technical are regarded as non-profits for tax purposes, yet their real world behavior doesn't match their tax status.

There's a lot of problems in the medical area that need solving; however, Obamacare wasn't a good solution because it just created so many additional problems without addressing the issue of the costs of healthcare.  That's something insurance tends to hide because that's how insurance works.

Well, yes. 

The political problem here comes in when the Republicans have never specifically said what they would do instead. Obamacare is sold as the best we could do given the existing insane framework (although thrown a bit off target by political deals to make it pass). Trump (I'm not counting him as a republican) only went as far as mumbling something incoherent about states' rights as a fix - something the president doesn't have the power to do.

I bet we will see no significant changes to Obamacare in the next 4 years, for lack of alternatives. The republicans will claim that the previous administration locked it in too hard so that they don't have to touch it and can blame Obama. Then they are going to make a couple of steps to put the religious right's opinion into law or action so that they appease their voters.

Trump might take a good shot at get those people who drive up healthcare cost the most. A better shot than the Democrats would have. However, I think it is unlikely to be any better than a noisy token.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2016 at 3:37 AM, Almagnus1 said:

That may not be a bad thing because too many got into the industry for the money, and many doctors make like 100k/year (or more).

The salaries of the medical profession are half the problem, as each medical personnel is extremely expensive.

Given how much work goes in to becoming a doctor, how difficult many of the specialties are, and the hours they work, I don't begrudge them a good salary at all.  It's very much a case of a job which not many people are capable or willing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JRonnie said:

Given how much work goes in to becoming a doctor, how difficult many of the specialties are, and the hours they work, I don't begrudge them a good salary at all.  It's very much a case of a job which not many people are capable or willing to do.

When we live in a world where footballers get paid more than an entire hospital's worth of doctors, I'd be glad of a change in the pay scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Darmokk said:

Well, yes. 

The political problem here comes in when the Republicans have never specifically said what they would do instead. Obamacare is sold as the best we could do given the existing insane framework (although thrown a bit off target by political deals to make it pass). Trump (I'm not counting him as a republican) only went as far as mumbling something incoherent about states' rights as a fix - something the president doesn't have the power to do.

I bet we will see no significant changes to Obamacare in the next 4 years, for lack of alternatives. The republicans will claim that the previous administration locked it in too hard so that they don't have to touch it and can blame Obama. Then they are going to make a couple of steps to put the religious right's opinion into law or action so that they appease their voters.

Trump might take a good shot at get those people who drive up healthcare cost the most. A better shot than the Democrats would have. However, I think it is unlikely to be any better than a noisy token.

Oh yes, you checked your magic 8 ball and decided that he'd be a do-nothing...

Contrary to what you think, Trump's a very smart, driven person because he trolled his way to the Republican nomination, and then figured out the best way to beat Hillary, and then did so.

I wouldn't underestimate (or overestimate for that matter), but keep an open mind with what Trump's going to do from this point forward.  All expectations went out the window as we've never had a CEO as a president, and comparing his victory speech to a lot of the stuff I've heard from Satya Nadella internally, that was pure CEO speak for "We did good, here's what I'm thinking, let's get to work".  From a lot of his smaller speeches, while yes he's a New Yorker (which means he doesn't exhale, he talks), he's also shown to be smarter than the Democrats ever gave him credit for.

I mean, if a so-called idiot beat your so-called smartest person, what does that really say about your "smartest person"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9-11-2016 at 5:26 PM, FundinStrongarm said:

Let's hope Trump or anyone doesn't follow the policies listed here. Yeesh. 2 is downright scary and 1and 3 are same ol' same ol' money grows on trees fantasy land. I'm sorry, but all that would be continuing in the wrong direction.

Yeah, and that's the problem.

Problem: People are poor because they don't have a job that pays enough and they don't have the intellectual capacity to learn for a better job. I think many of the so-called "angry white man" but also many of the "criminal" black people have this problem. 

How to solve this? You just rejected 3 from the 4 options I suggested and I said the 4th isn't a realistic option. So do you have a better idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Thrabath said:

 

How to solve this? You just rejected 3 from the 4 options I suggested and I said the 4th isn't a realistic option. So do you have a better idea?

Increased minimum wage, better education\training\apprenticeship options for adults are a couple of options that immediately spring to mind.

Edit: Just seen that you mentioned minimum wage already, not sure why Fundin dismissed this, seems like a good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raising minimum wage simply prices low skill workers out of a job in many cases. Or lowers the number of hours of employment they get. It is the wrong direction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thrabath said:

Yeah, and that's the problem.

Problem: People are poor because they don't have a job that pays enough and they don't have the intellectual capacity to learn for a better job. I think many of the so-called "angry white man" but also many of the "criminal" black people have this problem. 

How to solve this? You just rejected 3 from the 4 options I suggested and I said the 4th isn't a realistic option. So do you have a better idea?

I have a solution, though it's one that requires some adjustments in priorities.

The US spends something crazy like $600 billion on military. So, instead of the US wasting so much money on the military, sending soldiers and equipment halfway around the world to kill people who won't even make as much in one lifetime as is spent killing them, they cut the budget in half. $300 billion is instead funnelled straight in to programs to help the poor, like apprenticeships, food stamps, and even investment. There are roughly 45 million Americans in poverty, and even if we assume only a third of those are children, that's still $10k per year per person to the poor in an effort to get them back on their feet. After a few years, if the people are still unable to contribute, then they don't get any more help (prevents laziness or reliance on hand-outs).

And that's just cutting down the money spent on killing foreigners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raising minimum wage actually doesn't do anything other than drive inflation, because the people paying minimum wage drive up costs, and the rest of the economy just raises all the prices, ending up with people feeling a bit better that their still poor... without actually increasing any wealth.

Real solution is with education.  For the poor that are poor because of life taking a crap on them (yes, that does happen), that's a solid solution.  For the poor that are financially stupid, and want to learn how not to be financially stupid (and thus, not poor), that may also work.  For the poor that are just lazy and want everyone to take care of them...  well, I doubt there's much we're going to do to help them =/

Speaking of which... perhaps something we should look into is free access to financial planners and financial coaches, as that would help alleviate some of the issues we're seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Speaking of which... perhaps something we should look into is free access to financial planners and financial coaches, as that would help alleviate some of the issues we're seeing.

I doubt it. Those motivated to see one are probably not making horrible choices and those not motivated won't go at any price. Might be a few corner cases it helps but most likely it would just be yet another money pit with many gaming the system at government expense which would end up being yet more government control micromanaging our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, FundinStrongarm said:

I doubt it. Those motivated to see one are probably not making horrible choices and those not motivated won't go at any price. Might be a few corner cases it helps but most likely it would just be yet another money pit with many gaming the system at government expense which would end up being yet more government control micromanaging our lives.

It's almost like we've got to teach life skills to adults that never picked it up along the way >.>

Almost like we've taught someone how to fish, gave them a pole and a tackle box, and then they traded both for a hot meal >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't enough mid-to-high paying jobs out there for people. There's a reason there are minimum wage jobs, and they are also needed in any economy. In the UK, we had a situation that unless you were doing over 30 hours a week on minimum wage, it really wasn't worth taking the job, especially as a single person who is not a parent.

The Welfare system here has been too much of a safety net, and really, taking into account how the Government's lowered the benefit cap in recent years(it's just been lowered again), raising minimum wage is the only alternative. Then there's the National Living Wage if you are over 25, which is an increase of what it was for over 25's when it was the National Minimum Wage.

 

In the previous tax year(2015-2016), it was £6.70/hour for people aged 21 and over. This year, with the introduction of National Living Wage, it's £6.95/hour for 21-24 year olds, and £7.20/hour for 25+. That is significant. You work 40h/week, that's an extra £20 a week.

Not raising it is moronic as people would need to rely less(or not work multiple jobs)on benefits, which means not taking as much from the government. That money instead is used to bolster local economies the country over. People feeling forced to work multiple jobs(one of my colleagues, actually, as she is on NatLivWage)just to get by are taking jobs from people who haven't got one, leaving them reliant upon benefits. 

And no matter what anyone says, it isn't easy finding work for some of the people who have been on benefits for a long time. Being out of work + low-skill + no recent experience = Not gonna get work

 

4 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Raising minimum wage actually doesn't do anything other than drive inflation, because the people paying minimum wage drive up costs, and the rest of the economy just raises all the prices, ending up with people feeling a bit better that their still poor... without actually increasing any wealth.

Real solution is with education.  For the poor that are poor because of life taking a crap on them (yes, that does happen), that's a solid solution.  For the poor that are financially stupid, and want to learn how not to be financially stupid (and thus, not poor), that may also work.  For the poor that are just lazy and want everyone to take care of them...  well, I doubt there's much we're going to do to help them =/

Speaking of which... perhaps something we should look into is free access to financial planners and financial coaches, as that would help alleviate some of the issues we're seeing.

I disagree with the minimum wage bit, but the stuff regarding education is spot on.

Also, not sure you have anything equivalent in the US, but in the UK, there are places you can go for free debt/budgeting/income maximisation advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to watch this. It's so, so sweet. A panel of what seem to be the mentally ill having a breakdown throughout the live election results.

I couldn't even make up half of the shit they rant about after losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doro said:

You have to watch this. It's so, so sweet. A panel of what seem to be the mentally ill having a breakdown throughout the live election results.

I couldn't even make up half of the shit they rant about after losing.

I didn't watch it, but I just wanted to say that even though the candidate I voted for, Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, didn't win, I did not riot, loot, terrorise, whine, cry, call in sick, or otherwise make a fool of myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Doro said:

You have to watch this. It's so, so sweet. A panel of what seem to be the mentally ill having a breakdown throughout the live election results.

I couldn't even make up half of the shit they rant about after losing.

I love watching Cenk lose it.

As for minimum wages, here in Australia (due to how strong unions are here) we have the highest nominal minimum wage in the entire world.  It's currently $17.70 Australian an hour which equates to 10.70 UK Pounds or $13.30 US an hour.  The result of this has been the evisceration of the Australian manufacturing sector. It's quite simply too expensive to make almost anything here and we end up relying on the mining sector and ever increasing government spending (and growing debt) to maintain the economy.  

We also have one of the lowest tax rates of low income earners in the world (and one of the highest rates on high income earners).  We also have free health care.  Despite all this, people still complain bitterly about how bad they have it here.  It makes me sick to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×