null

Show Entries

US Healthcare - Bullshit!
Entered on: December 4, 2007 2:36 PM by BigFatty
Ok, this was to take my previous rant into its own topic. Healthcare is a main thought for me in my consideration of coming back to the US. Roche's situation is a perfect illustation. They have insurance from both employers, yet when they go to the Mayo clinic for some test, insurance will only pay for some of it. They still will walk out of there with a few thousand dollars of bills. Don't say 'its better than nothing', cuz it really is not. It still damages them financially.  
 
My stance - everyone should have free access to healthcare. We spend about $2 Trillion a year on healthcare ($6,700 per person). You'd think that would be enough to cover things.... until you factor in things like gross profits...

NEWS 473 - 50 Comments
From: Ross Entered on: December 4, 2007 2:53 PM

Healthcare is seriously broken, no doubt about it.  By comparison, the Social Security "mess" is a "Where's Waldo"-level problem.  As I just said, I think HMOs are one of the worst inventions of all time, and I think a lot of what Sicko was about was really HMOs.  I think the quality of insurance varies quite a bit, really.  But another thing is just how expensive it is, just for marginally good care.

I don't have a lot of personal experience with my health insurance, but even my paltry stories are almost all universally negative.  What gets me the most is just how bureaucratic everything is.  For instance, I knew beforehand that when Logan was born, that I would have trouble getting the insurance situation straightened out, since Heather and I have our own separate insurance plans, and it's much cheaper for me to put Logan (but not Heather) on mine.  So given that the mother and the baby are on two different plans, I knew I'd have to struggle to get the hospital to bill us properly.  Even knowing all this, there is literally nothing someone like me, without any inside knowledge of industry policies (or hours or days of free time) can do to make this work out correctly from the get-go.  Who would you tell?  Granted, up front, they ask for your insurance, but they only ask for the mother's insurance.  Even though we gave them copies of my insurance, and they "took" this information, they didn't make use of it.  And there's no one you can call in any known billing department that will even try to straighten this out for you.  So sure enough, Heather's insurance has been billed for Logan's care, and it has been rejected.  We have called the hospital numerous times and they've feigned understanding but it's clear that no one really gives a shit.  Eventually, after a year or so passes, you'll end up with a collection agency after your ass and your credit will be ruined, all because the fucking hospital won't listen to some simple fucking instructions!  

Shit Fatty, who has high blood pressure now? 


 
From: NickNick Entered on: December 4, 2007 3:51 PM
For an example of how stupid some of the rulse are in our healthcare system, how about this.  When Megan gave birth to Reese, we had to pay 2 seperate deductibles.  One for the mommy and one for the baby.  What kind of crap is that.
 
From: BigFatty Entered on: December 5, 2007 4:20 PM

So, I go to my Hungarian doctor today for a check-up.  I was out sick with Pinkeye for a few days and in order to be paid, I need a doctors note.  So we talk about my high blood pressure and it is moving up....  we talk about switching meds....  she is concerned.  I like her.  I then asked her if they are any sleep clinics in Budapest.  I explain my many years of not being able to get a good nights rest.  They same conversation I've had with a multitude of US doctors and HMOs.  (Who has not heard about all the bad things linked with not enough sleep?)  It certainly is a health concern.... but what did they do in  the US.... nothing.  Well after about 5 years I got smarter on things and demanded some sort of sleeping pills.  Those worked pretty good... but I was very dependent on those.  

Any how......  my doctors response here????  Here let me write you a paper so you can go.   What will be my out of pocket expenses for having this specialized testing done to me?  $1 per trip and about $5 per prescription.  I am not certain if they can help me, but they can certainly answer some questions!

Fuck US health care!  Fuck the profit-making, claim-denying insurance industry.  Why is the US 37th in the world in terms of health care?   Insurers limit access to care so they can profit. 

This is the problem.  Health insurance companies are insurance companies... they are based on the insurance company model.  Pooling people's money together to pay out on a few big loses on a few incidents.  Well, health care is not like auto insurance.  Not everyone will have an auto accident, but everyone will need health care and most of use will need a lot of it at some point in our lives.  Why are we giving our money we need for health care to a company who will manage it in a way to deny us treatment, so they can make a lot of profit from whats left over.  They will not even cover the people who need it the most (pre-existing conditions)  These people are left uncovered.

In 2006, the top 12 Health Insurance and Managed Care companies made over $10 Billion combined (Fortune 500) in PROFITS off of money 'the insured' gave them for their healthcare.   That is $10 Billion not paid out for claims that I am sure people wanted or needed.  Why does this seem so wrong to me and why is this not a big deal to anyone????


 
From: Ross Entered on: December 5, 2007 4:39 PM
Well said, Fatty.  I agree.

 
From: NickNick Entered on: December 6, 2007 12:10 PM
And how.
 
From: Swerb Entered on: December 6, 2007 2:16 PM

My biggest problem is deciphering the bureaucracy. I get monthly statements in the mail, and it's so confusing, I almost need a doctorate to determine what applies toward the deductible and what doesn't and why this comes out of my personal flex account thingy, and that doesn't. I ran into that recently with visits to the allergist, and if the doctor arbitrarily bills it as an "allergy-related" visit, it doesn't come out of my flex account, and if it's billed as "sinusitis" (which is product of my allergies, thank you), then it does come out of my account. Now tell me, how in the fuck am I supposed to know or keep track of such details? I need to keep track of that account, because anything left over in it goes towards my retirement savings. Argh!

Believe it or not, it was even worse when I was under Blue Cross in '06. I switched to Aetna, and it's relatively simplified (confusion lessened)... but the retarded thing is, I got paperwork in the mail in '07 welcoming me to Blue Cross! WTF? Is this the fault of my dumbass employer, or the dumbass insurance company? 

My Conspiracy Theory is, insurance companies are trying to keep us as uneducated as possible. Me, as long as I don't have to pay anything out of pocket (which is rare - I actually have a really good plan), I don't care, although I probably should. I imagine some people get a bill that's questionable and just say "fuck it' and send in a check, which is what the insurance companies want. I'm convinced this is true.

 


 
From: Ross Entered on: December 6, 2007 3:10 PM
Kind of like rebates.  That's how they getcha!  They figure most people won't file for a rebate, and even if they do, they won't keep checking to make sure they get their money.  Me, I try to avoid rebates whenever possible for this reason, but when I do file for them, I put it on my calendar to check by a certain date for the money, and if I haven't gotten it, the steps to harass people.  It once took me almost a year and numerous emails and phone calls to get a $70 rebate on an LCD monitor (back when the cost an arm and a leg) but by god, I got it!  Fuckers!
 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: December 6, 2007 10:44 PM

Fatty - Allow me to defend insurance companies a little.  Sounds like you watched SiCKO (which was very good).  Speaking for Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI (BCBSM) -- which operates a bit different from the worst-case insurance companies shown on SiCKO...

Firstly, BCBSM does not deny any participants (regardless of health).  Second, it's a non-profit and 92% of the premiums collected is paid out to claims.  For a reference point, when donating to a charity the rule of thumb is to stick to organizations that pay out at least 80% to the cause.  BCBSM is 92%.  That's 8% for administrative costs.  Though there might be a little room for more efficiency, basically if you want more claims paid, they will have to charge higher premiums.  The real culprit is that Healthcare is just ungodly expensive here.

One problem:  Drug companies are protected here -- by our own politicians -- and allowed to charge ridiculous rates for drugs.  The same stuff is cheaper in Canada, Mexico... practically everywhere!  Plus the drug companies pay for marketing -- "Consult your doctor and see if you're right for ZAN-blankety-blank-OX" -- when it's the doctors that should be prescribing shit.

Well... we could go on and on here couldn't we?  I just had to throw in some defense for Blue Cross.

 

And regarding Rebates?  I LOVE 'EM!  I've sent in countless ones for harddrives and whatnot and never had an issue.  Manufacturers can offer sweet deals after rebates because of the number of people that never send them in.  Works for me!

 

Oh yeah... and you still can't beat the Post Office! 


 
From: Ross Entered on: December 7, 2007 8:29 AM

Hard drive rebates from big vendors (Western Digital, Seagate) tend to be more reliable than a lot of other companies.  But they're still a hassle.  The only rebates that are acceptable to me now are the "Easy Rebates" that you can fill out and monitor entirely online.  

And the post office still sucks (everywhere outside Lowell, apparently).   


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: December 24, 2007 9:54 AM

I found this interesting.  It's too bad Michael Moore couldn't have said something nice about his local Blue Cross (SiCKO only featured Blue Cross issues from other states and implied they were all the same).  This is an Op-Ed piece written by Blue Cross of MI's president that ran in the Detroit News last week:

 

Fix state’s laws to improve access to health care

 

by Daniel J. Loepp

 

When the Michigan Legislature reconvenes in 2008, health care security and affordability will have its proper place at the top of the people's agenda in Lansing .

 

Blue Cross Blue Shield is a proud champion of legislation to reform Michigan 's individual health insurance market. Reform is critical now to maintain access to coverage, and the long-term affordability of that coverage, for hundreds of thousands of Michiganians entering the individual market for the years to come.

 

While the number of people expected to find their own health insurance is increasing substantially, the regulations that govern how insurers treat these people haven't changed in more than 20 years. It is time for a change -- to improve everyone's access to coverage, and promote the long-term affordability of that coverage.

 

Michigan's market is unfair to people looking for health insurance on their own. For-profit insurers are allowed to reject individuals for any reason, and raise rates as much as they desire for people who get sick during their coverage period.

 

The legislation in the Senate changes that. It protects people by expanding access to affordable health insurance. It caps insurance company profits. It prevents insurers from raising premiums on sick people so high they are forced to drop their coverage. It creates a new guaranteed access system that eliminates the existing insurance waiting period for people with severe medical conditions. It holds all insurance companies financially responsible for upholding their moral obligations to cover people.

 

And it preserves Blue Cross' role as Michigan 's insurer of last resort -- so Michigan residents will always have a safety net.

 

Blue Cross is being attacked repeatedly by those opposed to reform. These attacks are wrong and meant to distract you from the positive aspects of reform.

 

Let's clear the record. We are a nonprofit company, and we do not profit on health insurance. During the past 15 years, our "profit" on health insurance averages just one-tenth of 1 percent. Instead, we earn income from wise investments and through our for-profit subsidiary companies.

 

These two sources bring in 93 percent of our annual contributions to reserves.

 

We receive about $82 million in tax breaks. What we return to Michigan is far more valuable. This includes annual investments of $150 million to Michigan hospitals for uncompensated care, and more than $260 million to hospitals for medical education that improves the quality of health care. We paid $70 million over the last five years to subsidize the state's MI Child program. This helped Michigan become one of the leading states for insuring children.

 

We also subsidize tens of millions of dollars in coverage for seniors. We pay out over 20 percent more than the premiums we take in to provide coverage to people as Michigan 's insurer of last resort.

 

We are the only health insurer to make commitments of this magnitude. All of these contributions combined are nearly four times the value of our tax exemptions.

 

We do these things because of our nonprofit commitment to health care affordability and access in Michigan .

 

Blue Cross Blue Shield supports individual health insurance market reform because we are committed to affordable coverage and long-term security for everyone. We championed similar reforms four years ago in the small-employer market. These reforms kept the cost of coverage for small businesses from skyrocketing out of reach.

 

Individual health insurance market reform is the next step. The legislation before the state Senate improves the ability of individuals and families to afford health insurance over the long term. It is the right thing to do for the people of Michigan .

 


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: December 24, 2007 11:49 AM
Yes, it seems not all Health Insurance companies are morally corrupt, pieces of shit. But the vast majority of them are. Blue Cross was not on my list of the 12 companies with combined profits of $10 billion last year. His letter does show the stranglehold the insurance compaines have on us. Talk about a oligopoly! If we accept you, you have to pay our rates no matter what they are. If you are sick, we will not accept you and you will not be able to afford healthcare - so you can die for all we care. We just want young, healthy people who do not need much healthcare and who will pay our high premiums. We will use these premiums not to pay for your healthcare, but to lobby and bribe the state and federal governments to create laws to protect our awesome profits.
 
From: BigFatty Entered on: December 24, 2007 3:34 PM
Here is a current and sad story one this very topic: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2007/12/22/finnstrom.liver.transplant.cnn Funny, I wrote the above post before watching this video. The reporter used the 'Stranglehold' phrase pretty much like I did. Strange!
 
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 19, 2008 4:06 PM

There was this book written about the happiest places on earth that I've been catching bits and pieces of on the web.  The top rated place was Denmark.  60 minutes did a piece on happiness that was fairly interesting - what makes people happy and why are certain places happier than others.  The quick answers are: lowered expectations, slowing down, doing less, decluttering life and making it simple.  Sounds a little like the Gospel of Jack.

Getting back to healthcare... I read this statement in one of the blogs and it was quite good:

All those people who think they are so clever that taxes are evil should really go to any Scandinavian country to see how good life can be. Corporate America has ruined much of America, everything is done on an individual or corporate level and in the end that entity benefits while society is left behind.

In the end, I wonder why socialism is considered 'evil'.  There are different degrees of anything and there are bad examples of socialism in use.  But, no one really is talking bad about those F'n Socialist Scandinavians.  I would like to see America take on more socialistic values.

And call me a Semi-Socialist!


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 19, 2008 4:26 PM

Well, I think it comes from the idea that if you try to make things too "even", spread across the whole society, it will take away anyone's incentive to really kick ass to try to get ahead. 

I think in your little screed there, there's a bit of the sentiment that everyone should just learn to live to be happy with less and slow down.  Well, if that's what works for you, great.  But if everyone did that, then I think society would largely stagnate and cease to innovate.  You still need the driven people to put in long hours of blood, sweat, and tears, and if and when they succeed wildly, they should be compensated wildly.

So this is why socialism is considered "evil" by many.  Socialized programs to some extent work rather well - as you pointed out before, police, fire, and I can even agree that health care fall into this category.  But I do firmly believe that if you even things up too much artificially, the true superstars will go away.  You could argue that this could still be a boon to the country as a whole, but I think it depends on how you'd choose to measure things.


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 19, 2008 5:09 PM

There are two topics here, really... and as usual, I've mixed the two discussions into one.  There is the Happiness one - what it really is, how to get it...  then there is the Socialism one.  Both are interesting to me.  You bit more on the Socialist one, so lets go a there first.

We Americans think differently about things than people in a Socialist country.  I have had some interesting conversations with some Scandinavian friends.  You are saying that when things are evened out, then the superstars go away.  They would have no incentive to perform at higher levels because they would not benefit more.  This is true, from an our point of view.  From a Socialist mindset, it is not so much what benefits the individual, but society.  So they still do get a greater benefit, but so do your neighbors.  It is a different mindset. 

Back to the happiness topic....  I do think that having less, slowing down are keys to happiness.  Americans are working their asses off to get more and more.  To quote your phrase

'You still need the driven people to put in long hours of blood, sweat, and tears, and if and when they succeed wildly, they should be compensated wildly.'

I would not think the people are so happy with the 'long hours of blood, sweat, and tears'.  Plus with the long hours they are sacrificing times they could be pursuing simpler happinesses (time with family and friends).  And even if they are wildly compensated, is it enough??  Seems like most Americans keep working their asses off to get more stuff that they never have time to enjoy.

Yes, there is the happiness that comes from your success as well.  But this happiness can come from more simpler success as well.  It does not have to be from your becoming VP of Fee Hiking at BoA.  It can come from finishing a crossword, completing a home project, or cooking a tasty steak.  Are they compariable??  Well, good question.  Think about all the time you could be spending on the little happinesses in life and compare it to the long hours and hard work to get the happiness from your promotion.  For some, it is worth it.

Isn't there a saying about the dumber you are, the happier you are?  I know Jack likes to say for retarded kids, every day is a Saturday.  Happiness can be found in the simple things and the more difficult ones.  If you go after the difficult ones, you miss out on the simple ones and may never reach the difficult ones.  Who is to say the difficult ones make you more happy?


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 19, 2008 9:21 PM
BigFatty said:

 

We Americans think differently about things than people in a Socialist country. I have had some interesting conversations with some Scandinavian friends. You are saying that when things are evened out, then the superstars go away. They would have no incentive to perform at higher levels because they would not benefit more. This is true, from an our point of view. From a Socialist mindset, it is not so much what benefits the individual, but society. So they still do get a greater benefit, but so do your neighbors. It is a different mindset.


Sorry Fatty, this is pure bullshit, and I don't even believe your socialist friends believe it.  Why?  Because it's completely contrary to human nature, and no government - no matter how sweet - is going to change that.  People operate based on what benefits them and their families - this is evolution talking, here.  Benefiting the entire society is not a concept that people are able to truly comprehend on a day to day basis and will not make overall decisions for themselves toward this goal.  Odds are your friends are just parroting what they learned in their school government classes and relish the thought of telling someone from the most powerful country on the planet why they suck.

Basically, I think everything you're saying is nonsense.  Some people are happy to work their asses off for what they love, others do it because they think it will get them ahead.  At the end of the day, it is not the government's job to legislate what makes you happy.  So what exactly are you saying?  So you evidently think you've figured out the secret to being happy.  Great.  Live it up in the fucking socialist countries, with your babies in shopping carts and bribes to get your meds on time.  Just don't expect me to drink your kool aid.

And it doesn't help that you're trying to somehow make it personal by throwing BoA in there - and thus implying that I derive my sense of happiness through some kind of dubious practices at my job when I should be doing things more in line with your expectations... do you really want to go there?


 
From: The Bone Entered on: February 19, 2008 10:26 PM
Ross said:

I think in your little screed there, there's a bit of the sentiment that everyone should just learn to live to be happy with less and slow down. Well, if that's what works for you, great. But if everyone did that, then I think society would largely stagnate and cease to innovate. You still need the driven people to put in long hours of blood, sweat, and tears, and if and when they succeed wildly, they should be compensated wildly.

 

I don't know man, those crazy little scandinavian fuckers make this sweet phone I just bought.


 
From: The Bone Entered on: February 19, 2008 10:47 PM

For the record, my experiences with Scandinavians are in synch with Fatty's. I think he's absolutely right and it doesn't run counter to evolution any more than the discipline to resist overeating does - which incidentaly is another thing Americans are not good at.


 
From: Swerb Entered on: February 19, 2008 11:06 PM
Ross said:

Live it up in the fucking socialist countries, with your babies in shopping carts and bribes to get your meds on time. Just don't expect me to drink your kool aid.

 

It's getting a mite bit snippy in here.

Despite my fear of being the recipient of a Ross Rant (TM), I'll throw in my two cents... I think the point is, at its core, socialism aims to reduce poverty by sharing the wealth. It's noble, perhaps. Does it work? I don't know. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics. But it's flawed because it limits the choices of the individual.

The good thing about capitalism is, there's room under its umbrella for socialsm, if one chooses to practice it. And that's where human nature comes in - few do. Therein lies the rub. People are selfish by nature. It's rare to see billionaires give up their fortunes to aid the poor. The concept of greed is applicable to more than just a financial context - the squirrel in my yard hordes nuts for himself, and could give a shit about the squirrel in the neighboring tree.

I do, however, think it's hard to defend capitalism sometimes, because in America, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps getting wider. Whether this is a result of corrupt capitalism could be argued - or does capitalism corrupt the individual? It's a chicken-or-the-egg argument.


 
From: Radmobile Entered on: February 20, 2008 7:40 AM
BigFatty said:

Isn't there a saying about the dumber you are, the happier you are?  I know Jack likes to say for retarded kids, every day is a Saturday.


I'd never heard this quote from Jack but it's great.  Someone needs to put it in the quotes, unless it's in poor taste and we don't want it on the frontpage.

Also, I believe the phrase you're referring to is "ignorance is bliss."  I agree fully with that statement too.  I find that the more I know, the more I wish I didn't know.  Whether it's finding out how awful your favorite foods are for you, or finding out there's no Santa Clause.  It was pleasant being dumb.

I don't want to de-rail the discussion though.  Put my vote as "needs more info"  but leaning toward the Fatty side.  I understand the world works the way Ross says it does, but I still would prefer it if things worked how Will is describing.


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 9:06 AM
Radmobile said:

I don't want to de-rail the discussion though. Put my vote as "needs more info" but leaning toward the Fatty side. I understand the world works the way Ross says it does, but I still would prefer it if things worked how Will is describing.

Well, I think that really sums up the Fatty argument well:  I wish people saw things my way.  Well I do too, to a large extent, but that's not what the original point of this discussion is about - it's about government.  And government means forcing people to behave a certain way at the point of a gun.  Literally. 

And that's why, Swerb, you defeated your own argument: socialism isn't charity.  It's forced charity, to the government, who will do with your money as they please.  Oh, and again, emphatically: at the point of a gun.

I think capitalism has largely won in the marketplace of ideas and I can't believe you backward bastards haven't figured this out, let alone Fatty who has studied this shit.  Hell, Adam Smith had this figured out back in 1776 - his whole point was that self-interest can and will lead to benefits for the entire society (but that isn't what drives anyone and it's pretty fucking laughable for Bone of all people to argue otherwise).  This has been largely borne out in our country and I don't think it's any mistake that by employing those principles, we have become so incredibly powerful. 

Don't get me wrong - like I said, I believe that some social programs are the inevitable result of a well-run government full of happy people, and the US isn't there yet.  Hell, I'm not even saying that the Scandinavian model (which is basically partway between capitalism and socialism) is wrong - but I am saying that I think Fatty is mangling their message, and that unfetterd socialism (which Fatty wasn't apparently originally arguing for, but then seemed to defend later) is ruinous and all but guarantees that smart, hard working people will flee.  Fatty's response to this seems to be "oh well.  They should just learn to be happy by eating a steak instead."

So I could do without the sanctimonious "Uncle Fatty has the secret to happiness figured out" routine.  A crossword can make me happy?  Gee, thanks for the tip!  I never thought of that.

Oh, and Bone, Americans built my sweeter phone.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 20, 2008 8:36 AM

Yes, the retard quote ("every day is Saturday") is mine.  Great discussion, by the way.  When I get a chance I'll try to chime in, but it is New Comic Day at the store!  Talk about happiness!

 


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 8:59 AM
The Bone said:

I think he's absolutely right and it doesn't run counter to evolution any more than the discipline to resist overeating does

By the way, yes it does.  When someone resists overeating, they're still acting in their own self interest, not in the interest of the state, which quite to my point, has no evolutionary meaning whatsoever.


 
From: NickNick Entered on: February 20, 2008 9:23 AM
And that's why, Swerb, you defeated your own argument: socialism isn't charity.  It's forced charity, to the government, who will do with your money as they please.  Oh, and again, emphatically: at the point of a gun.

This is not necessarily true.  Many of these socialist governments, especially the scandanavian ones became like due to the preferences of the people.  Not by gun point.  Socialism is not a dictatorship and the people will still decide what to do with their money, they just decide toshare it.  I mean that only with socialism as an ideal state. 

I ackowledge the fac that some socialist countries don't ring true to the socialist agenda and are built more for the benefit of the government.  

I think that any government, regardless of the type eventually becomes more concerned with the survival of itself and not of the people.  You could say that's what wrong with America today.  The government today is not concerned with the original capitalistic ideals that it was founded, nor is it truly concerned with some of the socialist programs that have evolved, but that most of it's energy is spent just to maintain the government.

You can see this happen with any of the larger governments of the past.  Communist Russia, the Roman Empire, Britain, France's and Spain's great colonial efforts, Mongolian Empire, Japanese Empire.  All of these empires or societies failed because the energy to maintain them became greater than the energy the people could put into it.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 20, 2008 9:30 AM

Happiness is laying a nice solid brick in the bowl.  Am I right, Fatty!?  Gimme a shoutout!  (Sorry, it's all I have time to post right now)


 
From: The Bone Entered on: February 20, 2008 9:37 AM

Bert - I'm just pointing out that my real world experience with Scandinavians is in accord with what Fatty is saying. They simply have a different mindset than we do. I can only assume you don't have any empirical knoweledge in the matter and you are bound by the world of acedamia to rely on for info. Not a bad thing but sometimes when you rely soley upon books and theory the real world application may be muddled.

Now I certainly won't argue against capitalism. It's quite obvious it works. Now I think Fatty's arguement is the Scandinavians are generally happier and I think they are able to make their brand of socialism work. They are not a stagnant lot. Perhaps they aren't leadin the world in technological breakthoughs but they aren't chucking spears at antelope either.

Simply put, they value free time with friends and family over material things. We seem to be the opposite. It's a cultural difference, that's all. If the interests of the state marry up with those of the individual then I don't see the conflict with evolution.

 

By the way, The Iphone is an impressive piece of gear but ultimately I didn't want something with the heft of a desk top ashtray clunking around in my trousers.


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 9:38 AM
NickNick said:
And that's why, Swerb, you defeated your own argument: socialism isn't charity. It's forced charity, to the government, who will do with your money as they please. Oh, and again, emphatically: at the point of a gun.

This is not necessarily true. Many of these socialist governments, especially the scandanavian ones became like due to the preferences of the people. Not by gun point. Socialism is not a dictatorship and the people will still decide what to do with their money, they just decide toshare it. I mean that only with socialism as an ideal state.

I think you misunderstand me: all government enforces its rules at the point of a gun.  Dictatorship or not, the fact is, you are forced to pay your taxes.  I was just drawing the distinction between voluntarily giving to charity and involuntary giving through taxes is all. 

 


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 20, 2008 9:50 AM

Man - who would have thought that Happiness and Socialism were such an explosive cocktail!  This is exciting!  Ross is in there with his guns blazing!!  I don't have time to post, but I will try when I get home.

But, I do need to clarify something for Ross.  My 'It does not have to be from your becoming VP of Fee Hiking at BoA.' was not meant as a personal attack on you...  it was just a friendly poke at your Job.  I could have used a Smiley....  Anyway, I can see how it can be viewed the other way.  So I apologize if that was offending - that was not my intention.  I was trying to illustrate working hard to achieve a high position and the sacrifice involved.

Man... I would like to respond to some of Ross's points... but I will have to wait until I get home.  So the Sanctimonious Uncle Fatty will have to wait to share his secrets until then....

Where is the Bunk??  She will be fun to have up in here!


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 10:05 AM
The Bone said:

Bert - I'm just pointing out that my real world experience with Scandinavians is in accord with what Fatty is saying. They simply have a different mindset than we do. I can only assume you don't have any empirical knoweledge in the matter and you are bound by the world of acedamia to rely on for info. Not a bad thing but sometimes when you rely soley upon books and theory the real world application may be muddled.

Well Bone, you are mistaken.  You assumed that since I didn't use personal anecdotes as my primary form of argument, as you and Fatty did, that I didn't have any.  What you apparently fail to realize is that argument by anecdote is a logical fallacy and does little to further your point. 

Not that it matters, but I have worked with and talked informally with numerous Scandinavians - I'd wager more than you have.  I personally don't find them to be too different in general than me on their general outlook.  Of course, everyone is biased toward the way their own group operates to some extent, but there was a reason that a lot of those guys came to the US to seek their fortunes. 

Once again, though, as a pure point of interest, it cracks up me up how much stock people put into personal experience over more reliable data.  This is of personal interest to me - even though such overreliance has been shown time and again to be a bad idea, it seems to be built into human nature and that's something people should try to fight as much as their tendency to self-interest, if you ask me.

But you're also arguing something that I don't agree with and never indicated: I for one do not value material goods over friends and family.  I don't even believe that most Americans do either.  I think that's a perception that is blown way out of proportion, and people are confusing the idea that because the government of some countries goes more socialist, that all people suddenly change their way of thinking about their own well being.  Well, I call bullshit, and sorry, it's just not going to cut it to say "well, I talked to a guy who really believed it."


 
From: Bunky Entered on: February 20, 2008 10:14 AM

Fatty, I am here dying on the sidelines! I have been traveling for work the last few days. I have wanted to jump in several times, but it is too much work on my Blackberry (tm).

Apparently, New Comic Book Day equates to a Saturday for Jack!

I see two discussions going here: Socialism vs. Captialism and what truly defines happiness.

I don't know if I will have time to jump in today. Cry

I do have a question for the Bone: You are not counting frooking as your "real world experience with Scandinavians" are you? I just needed some clarification before I can validate your arguement....


 
From: The Bone Entered on: February 20, 2008 10:29 AM

Bert - I don't have much time, I have to go deliver a presentation to a couple of Congressional Delagates but I do want to make a quick point. There's a distinction between anecdotal evidence of limited experiences and observations of an entire nation. I've been to Denmark and seen how the society operates. By no means am I an expert but my observations are a little different than the scenario in your Logic 101 website that you love to pull out from time to time. Of which, I've seen you commit past infractions no less.


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 10:31 AM

Be that as it may, Bone, your personal experiences alone do not constitute evidence of any sort.  Nor do mine.


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 10:40 AM

I think that's a good point, Bunky - there are two discussions here - and I think part of the issue is that people are mixing the two (myself included).  I thoroughly reject the notion that I, for one, have a messed up sense of happiness.  The biggest sense of happiness I get is from spending time with my wife and son, bar none.  I also enjoy good food, video games (and the smack talk that goes with them), and technology among other thigns.  Now I'm very lucky that the happiness I get from my affinity for technology creates a feedback loop whereby I'm able to be gainfully employed by virtue of it, hence further fueling my technology habit.  Incidentally, it's also what allows me to create a site like Jackassery from scratch in my spare time, and to enjoy conversations (even heated ones) with my friends even though we aren't often in the same place at the same time.

Of course, I believe this would be less likely to happen in a strictly socialist environment.

But the second argument of capitalism vs socialism is on dangerous ground when one tries to relate it to happiness.  I agree that Scandinavians may generally be pretty happy and that they are more socialist than we are, but that's about as far as I think the reliable evidence goes (I could be wrong).  Certainly no causation has been demonstrated, and I'm not even sure how strong the correlation is.  How do we know that Scandinavians aren't going to be more happy no matter what their system of government is?  I just have to reiterate that while a government can (and should) try to foster happiness for its citizens, let's not confuse the issue by saying that people ought to seek happiness through means blessed by the state.  Our country is founded on the principle of freedom of the individual and freedom of conscience and to a large extent, strict socialism works directly against that.


 
From: NickNick Entered on: February 20, 2008 10:42 AM

I think I'm going to have to cry off this argument.  I tend to talk about governments in their ideal state and that just doesn't cut it.  I personally believe that as a society as a whole, if we focused more on everyone's happiness than on our own, we would be better off as a whole. 

When people try to focus on their own happiness first, we run over other people, not intentionally, and that obviously is counter productive towards the overall happiness.  I think that's where socialism is better than capitalism.  It focuses on the happiness of the society as a whole. 

Where this will definitely leave a few people worse off than they would be by "holding them back" the over all effect would increase the quality of life for everyone involved. 


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 10:53 AM

Like I said, NickNick, Adam Smith would argue that people already do, by nature act in their own interest (and this is confirmed by any sub-discipline of science that looks into the matter), the best thing to do is realize how reality really works and come up with a system that translates those facts into benefiting the society as much as possible.  As far as I know, capitalism seems to fit the bill much better than socialism. 

Again though, I'm not saying that people wouldn't do better to think of others more.  But I am saying that governments cannot and should convince anyone of how to be happy.  That's a little too close to 1984, if you ask me.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 20, 2008 12:04 PM

Socialism sounds nice, but in the real world capitalism works better.

This discussion reminds me of people's perceptions and actions in regards to Wal-Mart.  I've heard so many people say -- myself included -- that they are against Wal-Mart because they are so big, they don't want the whole world to turn into Wal-Mart, etc, etc.  Fine.  But then they notice that their favorite can of soup is 20 cents cheaper at Wal-Mart vs. Meijer.  "Fuck Meijer!  They've been screwing me and charging me too much!  I'm buying my soup at Wal-Mart for now on!"

Meaning:  People like to think they're doing the right for society and the good of all, but often individual needs/wants take over.  That's not a bad thing, it's just how things are.


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 20, 2008 1:09 PM

XKCD had a rather pertinent cartoon today:

cartoon


 
From: NickNick Entered on: February 20, 2008 2:02 PM

Sound like someone you know, Ross??  Wink

You know.  I really like that webcomic but he has some pretty depressing content every now and then.


 
From: jeurge Entered on: February 20, 2008 7:22 PM

Maybe this is purely semantics, but I do not consider capitalism or socialism as types of government, merely as methods of distributing goods and services within a society. The US of course is a capitalistic powerhouse which has found it necessary to employ socialistic concepts to ensure that some of our citizens are not figuratively left out in the cold. Does the fact that we employ some socialistic programs proove that capitalism doesn't work? I personally don't think so but it does point to the fact that pure capitalism would surely leave some people behind. I certainly could be mistaken, but my impression of the Socialist countries we are comparing ourselves to are simply more socialistic than we are, that they have decided, that more social programs should be under the jurisdiction of the government, paid by the whole society. But they also employ capitalism. Does their use of capitalism prove that socialism is a bust, I don't think so. But there again socialism in its purest form (picture communist USSR) does seem to discriminate against new ideas, advances in technology, etc. and still manages to leave many of its citizens out in the cold. So what is best, in my opinion, a balanced mix.

 

This whole thread started as a discussion about healthcare. Although we as a country spend more money on healthcare than any other country, we only rank as 38 or 39 out of 191 or so countries that are part of the World Health Organization in relation to health delivery. We are spending a lot of money without seeing any great return. Is it time to consider a socialist form of health care? If we don't, can we make sure that everyone has access to health care? Is health care a right or a privilege? We ask these questions because although as a species we are programmed to look out for number one first, we do also need to look out for each other in order to maintain society, and the evolution of human beings, in my opinion, is intricately tied to the developement and evolution of society.

 

This is my first foray into a discussion as Jeurge in a long time, please don't chew me up and spit me out.


 
From: Ross Entered on: February 21, 2008 8:04 AM

Jeurge, welcome to the fray!

I think we all basically agree that the best is a "mix" (though we've veered pretty far off topic at times), but we are arguing over how far the shift toward socialism should go.  In Scandinavia, it's more like half or more of their income goes to the state, roughly double what ours does.  Sounds like most of you guys think this would be a good idea if we did it here.  I personally don't think so, and here's why: those countries are much smaller than ours, and much, much less diverse.  Their populace is already more predisposed to think of each other as part of their own group, and much less likely to think of different groups in their country with an "us vs them
mentality."  Let's also not forget that they are on the whole pretty well educated as well.

In the US, how many times have you talked to someone decrying our welfare system and criticizing how someone spends their welfare check or foodstamps?  I can hear you all saying that that's because our system is broken and if we did it "right", like the Scandinavians, those issues would go away, but they wouldn't.  The problem is that our country is extremely diverse, with many different lifestyles, and many uneducated people making bad choices on what to with their money.  Again, I can hear you saying "with a better system they'd be better educated!" But how do you magically leap to that point?  Money alone is not going to do it, ask any teacher or school administrator.  These issues are complex and intertwined and are the basis for our complex, fractured national identity, and it's something that no Scandinavian country ever had to deal with.  They have started with a much cleaner slate than we have.


 
From: NickNick Entered on: February 21, 2008 8:17 AM

I agree with many of your points Ross.  That's why I propose we euthanize all the stupid people and then the smart people can split the riches.

Jeurge,  Good point on the semantics of socialism and capitalism.  I was thinking about that last night.  I was kind of suprised that someone didn't jump me on that sooner.


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 21, 2008 9:09 AM

Great point Ross.  Those Scandinavian countries are just starting to deal with the influx of foreigners and how to integrate them into their homogeneous society.  The natives are not very happy on funding these 'freeloaders'.  When you have a societal view of yourself and your neighbor (because you are the same), it is much easier to support your society.  When your society is infiltrated my foreigners - well it is an our society vs them deal.

Just another short point before I have to go... I know I have not had the time to respond more...  Societies are like religion in a way.  You grow up in one and are brainwashed from day one that this is the best way to live.  If you don't know any better, what else do you compare it to?  These Danes might be 'happier' according to that study, but it does not mean that we would be happy in Denmark.  There was an interesting counter-post on this happiness article.  I person said they lived in Denmark for two years and hated it.  To sum it up...  you can be happy in Denmark if you are Danish.  We might not be happy there.  On the other hand, America is supposed to be the best place on earth (American opinion).  It is pretty damn good, but there are lots of people that would not be happy here.  It goes against what they were born into and raised in.


 
From: jeurge Entered on: February 21, 2008 5:47 PM

Happiness is a dancing Kitty, can you give me a dancing Kitty Zilla?

Forgive me for going Dr. Phil on this point, but personal happiness is something we are responsible for individually, and no governmental system can ensure happiness much less provide for it through legislation. Can a government provide freedom that allows for the pursuit of happiness? Certainly, but what we do with our freedom, our abilities, our lives, is up to us. However great a society or government is, there will always be someone grousing about something, and in even the most restrictive, poor, societies, some people are able to be happy. We all have our own ideas of what makes us happy and that is the way it should be. Will gets to be happy by slowing down, living more simplistically. Ross can be happy enjoying his family, being a working man, and kicking our asses in debates. Bells can find happiness in good food and beer, and a hottie to dream about Wink. Zilla, well we all know that almost anything can make Zilla happy. Give me a Saturday that I can spend most of the day in bed doing nothing, and I am one happy chick. No judgements allowed. Short of suspending all personal liberties and freedoms, nothing that the government can do will impact my happiness at this level. Now satisfaction with how the country is run, that's a totally different ball of wax.

 


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 14, 2008 12:35 PM

Ross will hate the news source, but I found this story on 60 minutes to be very interesting.  It shows how the clever, non-experts can be the real agents for change.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: March 30, 2010 10:07 PM


 
From: Ross Entered on: March 31, 2010 8:34 AM

Speak it, brother Bill!  Part of me blanches at the divisiveness in his speech, but I guess I have to admit that the Republicans (and their increasingly nutty teaparty offshoot) have managed to turn me away seemingly every chance they get.  So much so that even a party as fucked up as the Democrats starts to look halfway decent. 

I started watching Maher's "But I'm Not Wrong" special on the train ride home last night, and it's pretty good - more of this kind of stuff of course.  There was one thing that resonated with me particularly well, when he started talking about patriotism.  He talked about how to Republicans, patriotism means that the US can do no wrong, and they have this childlike worship of our country and all its warts.  Basically, the "love-it-or-leave-it" mentality.  And that even questioning anything we do or have done is somehow unpatriotic and worthy of a brawl.  I have long identified this assinine trend, and is just another reason I can't identify with Republicans anymore.  In fact, it's particularly ironic in this case since in my opinion, true patriotism involves taking the difficult stand and offering criticism of your country when you think it's doing the wrong thing, so that you can keep it the best country in the world.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: March 31, 2010 10:45 AM

"Do Not Doubt Our God, Will"  LOL!


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 1, 2010 2:22 AM
Jackzilla said:

"Do Not Doubt Our God, Will"  LOL!

Damn, I told that lady to keep things on the down-low.  Now my secret is out!  Now it is out... she is right.


 
From: Ross Entered on: April 1, 2010 12:50 PM

One other hilarious moment in Maher's stand up special: he was talking about Palin's notes written on her hand when talking to the teabagger crowd, and that one of the notes was "tax cuts."  He's like "this is like the coyote writing 'Road Runner' on his hand'.  I lost my shit from that one.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 2, 2010 7:33 AM
Ross said:

One other hilarious moment in Maher's stand up special: he was talking about Palin's notes written on her hand when talking to the teabagger crowd, and that one of the notes was "tax cuts."  He's like "this is like the coyote writing 'Road Runner' on his hand'.  I lost my shit from that one.

That's hilarious!  I love it!


 

[Log In to Add Comment]


a division of

© 2003 Ross Johnson
RSS Feed