Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
speculawyer said:
you know.. the jew media of course!
oh.. sorry.. we are calling it the zionist media nowadays... my bad!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
you know.. the jew media of course!
oh.. sorry.. we are calling it the zionist media nowadays... my bad!
I'm encouraged that Obama is going to dive straight into shaping the healthcare bill. I was getting worried that his hands-off approach, focused on just setting the direction, was going to enable the public plan to get watered down while he stood around calling for something bigger. The NYT story made it sound like the alarm bells started ringing in the White House, and they're responding.
Deus Ex Machina
Member
Fox Nation 'Statement of Purpose'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpefShvFgKY&fmt=18
That was just ... so ... UNREAL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpefShvFgKY&fmt=18
That was just ... so ... UNREAL.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Zonar said:
Seconded. I don't normally go around looking for photosets, but they're always interesting when they pop up here.
The Librarian
Banned
What are the changes we'll get a single-payer system?
CharlieDigital
Banned
Dax01 said:
Well, the very nature of insurance is that it is based on the concept of a group contributing towards to cost of something that would cost an exorbitant amount if paid individually.
Crash your car and your auto repair bill may cost $10,000 and say another $10,000 in property damagers. Yet you may only pay $500-1000 out of pocket. Part of it is your contribution via your insurance premiums but the other part of it is that the pool of people who contribute to your insurance provider spread those costs around. The idea being that the number of people filing a claim at any given period of time is a small percentage of the entire pool.
Insurance companies have complex statistical models which they use to calculate the premiums required to sustain the claims against the pool (and also for profitability). I'm no expert in this field, but I'd have to wager that one of the biggest factors in this model has to be the number of people who are contributing to the pool. A single payer system would potentially aggregate a very large number of people into a single pool, thereby decreasing the premiums paid by any individual within the group and, as a consequence, increase availability by decreasing premium costs.
I would assume that having a larger pool also increases leverage when negotiating prices and services with providers, further improving the cost savings to the individual. Private insurance providers are deathly afraid of this system because it would actually force them to be competitive in services and prices. For most professionals, you really don't get a choice these days. Much like how your choice of utilities or cable provider or ISP is largely based on where you live, your insurance is largely based on who employs you. My wife is a teacher. Her school district provides her with health insurance from Cigna. She has no choice but to use Cigna...she can't choose another health insurance provider based on services or premiums. Likewise, my company offers dental, but I can't choose my provider....I'm stuck with whatever my company offers.
Theoretically, I could decline insurance coverage from my company, but buying insurance individually is ridiculously expensive and to make matters worse, its not like I would get a wage increase by declining coverage. The cost of health insurance is already built into my wage (as it is for most W2 professionals).
A public option, open to everyone, would potentially offer individuals an actual choice. Take the one offered by my employer -- if I like it -- or switch to the public option if the premiums and services are better (which is almost guaranteed based on the pool size and the fact that a public option would have to be much more open (i.e. no discrimination based on existing conditions)).
Now? Zero.Dax01 said:
Some years from now? Possible. Obama has said that if he were starting from scratch, he's create a single-payer system. But he thinks it's neither practical nor politically viable to go for that right now. I think his "strong public option" is a way to get us moving in that direction. I don't think we'll ever get there. But it's better than nothing.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Cheebs said:
I think her being there was to show "the other side." Same with Colmes being there, plus that dem strategist dude. Has she gone right wing?
empty vessel
Member
CharlieDigital said:
All of this is correct (and is the reason why Medicare costs are so much lower than the private sector). Additionally, a single-payer, national health insurance plan does not need to make a profit. So, for example, if we assume health insurance companies make a 10% profit, replacing them with a single non-profit system will--just like that--reduce health care costs by 10%. So it eliminates the inefficiency of the unnecessary, for-profit middle-man within the present system. Currently, these middle-men are parasites on the system and on you and me, sucking money from us for no good reason.
The Librarian
Banned
So what the hell are we going to get? I know there are some in Congress that are pushing for a single-payer system.GhaleonEB said:
speculawyer
Member
I hope this guy was just joking . . . if he was serious, it doesn't seem like something you'd tell a bank teller.
charlequin
Banned
Dax01 said:
Out of this bill? Zero.
Eventually? Well, that's a bit more complicated. First, over some reasonable span of time (let's say 50 years), calculate the percentage chance that the American government collapses under its own corrupt, Banana Republic corporate-handjobs weight and we become a third-world country in name as well as in all measures of average quality of life. Then, take the inverse of that.
Interesting things happening in Iran...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/something-is-happening-in-iran.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903125,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0606/p06s04-wome.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-election7-2009jun07,0,5930654.story?page=1 <--- must read.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/something-is-happening-in-iran.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903125,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0606/p06s04-wome.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-election7-2009jun07,0,5930654.story?page=1 <--- must read.
How awesome would it be that a country like Iran shifted towards democracy on its own started by a movement of its young-adult population? I know that is still pretty much a pipe-dream at this point, but it would disprove this notion that the United States has to intervene in a country's affairs in order to shift it towards democracy.Chrono said:
Oh. My god. Not only did the Bush administration manage to fuck us over in oil prices, but they basically managed to empower the likes of Ahmadinejad over the years.
I think this speaks for itself.
Iran's already a vibrant democracy. That it doesn't conform to our definition of a democracy doesn't devalue its position in relation to other countries in that region.
That said, it's difficult to say what replacing Ahmadinejad will do. The diplomatic tenor between the US/Iran will change greatly, but there will likely be little moderation on the underlying issues.
That said, it's difficult to say what replacing Ahmadinejad will do. The diplomatic tenor between the US/Iran will change greatly, but there will likely be little moderation on the underlying issues.
You know, I hope the GOP makes this their central argument around preventing a public heathcare option (which has broad public support):
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/hillary-obama-has-passed-3-am-test.php
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) warned that a public option for health care would "be the first steps in the -- destroying the best health care system the world has ever known."
That will go down well. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/hillary-obama-has-passed-3-am-test.php
effzee said:
That's a lot more complicated than 'LOLZ BLAME UMMERIKKKA!!!!'
They played a part, but they weren't the only or even the main force behind it.
The biggest road block to democracy in Iran is ISLAM. Thank fuck Iranians are Shia, if there wasn't some breathing room in a relatively more civilized Islam than Iran would be in a lot worse shape, maybe hopeless. Iran is living in greater misery than it ever was under the Shah and it's all because of the faithful and the rotten teachings they follow.
Culture is also a problem, as Akbar Ganji and other reformists/dissidents argue, but we all know these sort of discussions are bigoted and racists and imperialist.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
effzee said:
If only that was the problem...
speculawyer
Member
Chrono said:
Yep . . .
Edit: LA Times is a great source for Iran news since LA has a very big Iranian population. It is known as Tehrangeles by some.
If the other reformer guy running were to drop out then Mousavi should win.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Would he be able to keep his campaign promises while under Khamenei's watch? I've read a bit about both men, and it seems like Mousavi's calls for ending the police state mentality and civil rights for women are in direct opposition of the supreme leader.
speculawyer
Member
Yep . . . all we need to do is make sure the kids get good educations and keep flooding them with western modernity . . . Internet, Coke, Hollywood, porn, alcohol, pop music, make-up, blue-jeans, rock & roll, videogames, etc. . . . and they'll eventually fall like the USSR.Chrono said:
Edit: It make 10, 20, 40, 50 years . . . but it will happen eventually.
norinrad21
Banned
speculawyer said:
don't forget gambling halls
speculawyer
Member
Nope . . . Satellite dishes blanket the country. All sorts of stuff happens in private. All the 'death to the USA' stuff is mainly the older hard-right. The younger people are sick of the ruling Mullahs . . . the young are still Muslims but much more moderate.effzee said:
speculawyer
Member
A lot. Shia tends to be the more moderate strain. Wahhabism is the hardcore Saudi/Osama/Taliban austere brand of Sunni Islam. In Iran the women drive, most doctors are women I believe, they have far more equal rights.effzee said:
Plus Shia Islam is inherently a more democratic form of Islam . . . although there is no pope, people do follow different mullahs and those with more followers have more power such that it is quasi-democratic.
Before 1979, Iran was one of the USA's best friends in the region. But the problem is that they were pushed a little too hard, too fast to westernize and they were run by a dictator that had been in power for some 40 years who was in power, got removed from power, and then restored to power by a USA aided coup. This is why it was important for Obama to admit the 1953 coup . . . it needs to be acknowledged as does their improper taking of hostages and both sides need to move on.
A couple more articles...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/world/middleeast/31iran.html?scp=6&sq=iran elections&st=cse
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters...-ELECTION-ECONOMY-GENERAL-FEATURE-PIX-TV.html
Nice quote from the NY Times one:
I can imagine an Iranian conservative having a heart attack reading that post. :lol
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/world/middleeast/31iran.html?scp=6&sq=iran elections&st=cse
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters...-ELECTION-ECONOMY-GENERAL-FEATURE-PIX-TV.html
Nice quote from the NY Times one:
speculawyer said:
I can imagine an Iranian conservative having a heart attack reading that post. :lol
The Lamonster
Member
:lolGhaleonEB said:
Unbelievable.
charlequin
Banned
Chrono said:
You do realize that those kinds of reflexive sarcastic defenses against bigotry are pretty much exclusively used by bigots, right? If your case is based on something besides irrational hatred of religion you should be able to make it without resorting to that kind of shenanigans.
In general, I think the claims of Islam being "at fault" for a lack of democracy in the Middle East are wildly overblown. Democracy is a fragile, nuanced form of government that is basically impossible to impose externally and which requires a lot of culture building in order to be successful. As a general rule it doesn't work that well anywhere that has a recent history of despotic rulership without a great deal of difficult groundwork; plenty of places are equally resistant to democritization with quite different religious backgrounds.
It's weird that you cite Akbar Ganji here when his position is quite explicitly that the problem in Iran is one of power and that politicized religion is a weapon wielded by people predisposed to grasping for power, not an underlying cause.
PhoenixDark said:
I doubt he'd be able to do much, but it would be the first step in slowly chipping away at the Supreme Leader's power. The fact that the people would be willing to vote against Khameini's well known wishes would be telling in itself. But Iranian democracy isn't going to come about in a quick revolution like it did in America, the oligarchs are too entrenched in society. It's going to be a slow transition more like what was seen in the UK if it's going to happen, and Mousavi's election in direct defiance to Khameini would definitely be a step in that direction.
Cheebs said:
He can't tamper with the results too much, at least not without risk of having the fraud detected, though some underling would take the blame for that. He does, however, approve all candidates for running. Everyone in the election is preapproved by him, so no one too far out of his worldview runs. So while Mousavi might be to the left of Khameini and Ahmadinejad, he's not a threat to the overall system of theocratic governance. The real hope here is that Mousavi's election would open the doors to someone a little less conservative to be approved next time around, who would push things a little more towards democracy himself and so on and so on until some real change can happen.
empty vessel
Member
Chrono said:
This if false and bigoted to boot. The biggest roadblock to democracy in Iran is the specter of US intervention. You would do well to study some history.
Iran was on the verge of becoming (or perhaps one could say had just become) a secular democracy in 1951 when it elected Mohammad Mosaddeq prime minister. After he nationalized Iran's oil, the British and American governments intervened in 1953 to topple his government and installed a dictator, the Shah, who presided over the country with the financial and military support of the US for the next 26 years. This was a staunchly anti-democratic period in Iran's history. Iranians naturally enough revolted against this arrangement in 1979 (much as the Americans revolted against the British) and won its independence from American rule (this is why the common refrain during and after the revolution was "Death to America." It was not because Iranians hated democracy, but because it was the US that was preventing their own democracy). Unfortunately, while the revolt had different elements--all of which were unified against the Shah--the conservative religious elements eventually won control of the government over the secular and leftist elements. Nevertheless, this state of affairs represented significantly more democracy for Iranians than had existed prior to 1979 under the Shah. The country has steadily progressed more since that time, but every revolution has a deeply regressive streak in it for the sake of its own protection--here, for protection from further US interference and control of the country. This threat--the threat of further American intervention--is the threat that has impeded the further advancement of democracy in Iran over the last 30 years.
See Mark J. Gasiorowski's US Foreign Policy and the Shah and Mark J. Gasiorowski's Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran.
empty vessel
Member
Iksenpets said:
There is some caution that must be exercised with respect to describing politics in Iran as "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative" as we know them in the West. As the Time article posted above reflected, Ahmadinejad's economic program appears to be quite liberal or "left," in that it is redistributive and anti-imperial. His economic program has a focus on helping the poorer members of Iranian society. Of course, he and his base are what we would call socially conservative--religious and all the baggage that goes with it, as poor people are prone to be.
Mousavi and his base, by contrast, are what we would call socially more liberal and "open," but--and I have not studied this in any depth--my guess is that his economic program is neoliberal and will favor the better off within Iranian society (who, perhaps because their economic status gives them more wordly exposure, are also more secular and socially liberal). My further guess is that this is the reason why he would garner US support. (Conversely, Ahmadinejad's refusal to play neoliberalsim with Washington is a huge reason why Washington is hostile to him and Iran more generally. The economics of the American governing class rules the day.)
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Why does Iran's presidential election even matter? I thought the position had absolutely no power and is just meant to be the face of the nation.. and nothing more..
- Status