http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/

Join the boycott

(V):  You still don't get it.  The way a boycott works is one group complains and the advertisers respond to the complaints.  They are no responding to the show, but to the complainers.  Two can play that game.  Thousands more are boycotting the boycotters.  

The law is on our side:  Our right to boycott. 

Artful Dodger: Awwwwwwwwww don't worry, Fox ads are filling the slots... If you are lucky, maybe you'll get an uninterrupted show.

(V):  I'm not worried.  In one year the Dems will be out of power as they will be a Repub majority.  Obama will have 2 years left of his  lame duck presidency.  He'll never get reelected.  He will lose big time because his ideas are too radical. 

We need fresh blood in congress.  the old guard are out of touch.

Artful Dodger: What is radical about having a competitive health care system with no monopolies? What is conservative values.. you've yet to explain that.. they sure do seem to be different from our Conservative Party.

(V):  You have to look at the long term benefits vrs drawbacks.  Keep what's working, fix only the broken elements of health care.

Nothing the government ever does with regard to social programs works.  They all go bankrupt.  They are a bunch of incompetents.  It will end up costing the US taxpayer far more than most are currently paying.  and it's a fact that anyone can get health care treatment in America regardless of the ability to pay.

Artful Dodger: Here we go back into fraud, money, big, bankrupt, blah...

Do you enjoy paying into a scheme that is based on profit? Big, money, fraud, bankrupt, blah.

(V):  The government is a far worse option. 

Artful Dodger: Sure.. compared to whom? Show me figures that prove corruption in big companies is better than government... don't forget Madoff, the off shore accounts and other known fraud in your compilation

Take your time.. I'm having a cold one.

(V):   We're talking about government insurance.  Stick to the subject. 

Artful Dodger: No. your statement was that government is worse than private in fraud and overpricing.

prove it.

*burp*

(V):  Wrong again.  My words:

The government is a far worse option.

Nothing the government ever does with regard to social programs works. 
They all go bankrupt.  They are a bunch of incompetents.  It will end
up costing the US taxpayer far more than most are currently paying. 
and it's a fact that anyone can get health care treatment in America
regardless of the ability to pay.

Your false claim:  No. your statement was that government is worse than private in fraud and overpricing.

See, you've created a strawman.  Nice try.  But I never said that.  You either don't listen or you are deliberately twisting things.  Maybe both.  Reread what I said.  Lay off the beer. 

Artful Dodger: Why is the government a worse option? Fraud and incompetence are everywhere.

I would like to see some figures comparing the fraud and incompetence in business against that in the public sector.

Back up your claim. It's your turn to prove things.. I'm always getting the job!!

(V):
Why is the government a worse option? Fraud and incompetence are everywhere.

Artful Dodger: Private and public.. ya know my thread.

Still no figures.

1000's of building companies here cheating everyone for many many years..

The possibility of no fraud in the private sector is zilch.

Prove me wrong!!

Artful Dodger: zzzzzzzzzz

Artful Dodger: Yeah... I have a night off searching and ask a republican do stand up and prove a point and nothing.

stonewalling!!

(V):   Nope.  

Artful Dodger: Do I have to resort to pantomime talk??

(V):  You could try just being rational. 

Artful Dodger: I was.. asking you to use ya fingers.. or is it 'liberals' that are the only ones to prove something??

(V):  There's nothing to prove.  I never made the claim you challenged.  And you of all people don't get a pass on the "show me" request.  I think your favorite reply on this is: I've already explained that.  

Artful Dodger: You said..

"Nothing the government ever does with regard to social programs works. They all go bankrupt."

I said... "Sure.. compared to whom? Show me figures that prove corruption in big companies is better than government... don't forget Madoff, the off shore accounts and other known fraud in your compilation."

You are stating nothing the government does works? or just the bits you don't like..

I heard you can't cuddle a bag of money and get love!!

(V):Madoff was involved in social programs??? 

Artful Dodger: Help the aged was.

And that does not prove anything. Your health companies have policies to cancel policies over silly reasons.... "you can't have chemo as you didn't tell us you had gallstones"....

... "I didn't know I had gallstones".

Prove to me that the private sector can be trusted to run social programs without fraud.. "death panels" and overcharging through monopolies.

Artful Dodger: lobbyists.

Artful Dodger: Then part of the problem is private intrusion on the government.

Such is illegal openly over here and those caught lose their heads.

And until the two are separate there is no way you can say it's all the governments fault. Do you have notes, video's of all the meetings with lobbyists?

In the end it's all just opinion. But by UK standards.. it's illegal.

Artful Dodger: I think I read you right. The other way around you could speak about equality. From my point of vue, equality will cost something, not to the poor, not to the middle class. My point of vue, of course I get news made for Europeans. Today you hear the politicians talking about the need of reforms, social equity, the need to do more for environment. All things they closed their eyes from the past 30 years, things they don't even understand something about (like nuclear power, a Sarcozy simply fades out knowledge about nuclear power, and deals like a cracy with it) and continue to close their eyes about. It's pure hypocrisy what you hear from the establishments these days, the collateral law making of the very same days is the language I take for full. I don't have nothing from policicians speaking out their false minds, but their laws SUCK me like the need of vampires, and it's obvious that it is very rich global actors who bought and buy the governments. Living at the top of the babel tower is their natural pleasure. It's a waste of time to get mad about food stamps and how much this costs the tax payers. 1 mill of the robbed fortune of this topclass would finance this, but of course that's not a solution. The redistribution of wealth upwards is a constant process within the lawmaking. Young politicians need to get strait about, the established ones are lost. The very same people who created this last banking crisis, or created the social mess in Germany, are not taking responsability today, all they try is to save their skin while searching a way to continue the abuse.

gogul: I could admit that some of top politicians are not aware how much out of line they are, but among them there are criminals, and they need to get stopped. The ways this world goes is a stray. Still.

Artful Dodger: What really blocks the progress is this silly "feelgood-syndrome". People content themself with talking about compassion they don't actually feel, as everything would be done. Switzerland is too rich for wake up calls, lazy boring idiots while people who struggle are not few

Artful Dodger:

> We need fresh blood in congress. the old guard are out of touch.

This is very true. The latest election saw clear signs of this. I think it is why people voted for Obama, rather than Hilary Clinton or John McCain. People want to see change. I think it also explains for Sarah Palin's popularity. She is a new face, even if much of her rethoric and ideology represents traditional values.

A good question is whether the Republicans can provide a candidate able to unseat Barack Obama. I imagine that if Sarah Palin intend to be president then she will have to battle hard in the televised debates. She will also have to overcome certain disadvantages such as lack of experience in foreign policy.

There is the possibility of other up-and-comers gaining ground. If people really want change, they might opt for different political parties such as the Green Party and the Reform Party. It will be very interesting to see how that election unfolds.

Artful Dodger:

> The government is a far worse option.

I think we would have to be very naive if we think that the private sector is free from corruption. Historically, the private sector has existed for one and only one purpose: profit.

Health insurance companies did not go into that business to give away free health care. They went into that line because it makes them a lot of money. If that business were not profitable, they would have left it long ago.

Money has one effect on people. It can bring the worst out of them. If at some point private health insurers make the wrong business decisions, they could find themselves going bankrupt. When that happens million of people could face being without healthcare and just as with banks, the government (that is taxpayers) will be called in to bail them out.

To me it is not a matter of "if" it will happen but a matter of "when". Health insurance companies are financial institutions, just like banks. They deal with billions of dollars and they hedge positions against the financial markets, just like banks do.

I am convinced that the United States (and the rest of the world) will have to learn the lesson the hard way, just as we have done with banks. Maybe my views are too negative, but considering that the collpase of the banking system has happened several times in the past, I am led to believe that we as human beings repeat the mistakes over and over.

It will take the failure of a big insurer, and people lining up outside their offices demanding for services that the company will not be able to provide because they squandered their customers money out of greed and unwise investments. Is it unthinkable? As unthinkable as Enron collapsing, or the biggest banks in the world begging the Federal Reserve to give them billions of dollars to bail them out.

Is the government any better? That is a good question. Capitalist governments insist on contracting out services, and that makes things more expensive because the contractors called on to provide those services skin taxpayers alive. Then, where there is big money there is big corruption, and government employees can be just as greedy and stupid as anybody else.

Is there a solution? I think that if the government is not able to create a reliable public healthcare system, then there have to strict checks on what healthcare insurance companies do because if those companies fail their customers could find themselves with no coverage at all, and no government system to fall back on. Probably a hybrid system has to be in place, with government and private insurers working together. Unfortunately, at the present time greed is in the way of better judgement and the political environment is in favor of private insurance.

Over the next ten years millions of baby boomers will retire and enter the later stages of life. The pressure on private health insurers will become enourmous as the baby boomer generation ages in big numbers and the cost of providing services skyrockets. At some point the cost will exceed the profits that these companies make from their external invesments. Then these companies will start failing one after the other because for insurance to work, profits have to exceed costs.

Artful Dodger:

I agree with you in that competition would force companies to shape up. An inefficient, poorly manged company would fail, at least in theory. In practice mismangamengt can be resilient and survive, but that is not the point. I just wonder the not-for-profit insurers can compete with the capital of insurers that operate strictly for profit. I imagine that if they are efficient and preperly capitalized they have a fighting chance.

I think that the inability of insurers to sell across state lines is probably a throwback to decentralization of government. Since different states operate under different laws, some insurers could operate in a different way depending on which state they are based on. To allow insurers to operate across state lines would require all states to harmonize their legislation and to many state legislators that might feel like big federal government intruding on local legislation.

At the same time, companies operating in some states might feel that they lose thier monopolistic legal advantage if companies from other states can suddenly compete against them. They will lobby to keep the law as it is.

It is a complex problem. If the solution were simple this debate would have ended decades ago. Countries like Canada came up with a workable public healthcare system in the 1950s and 1960s because they did not have to deal with the legal complexity of harminizing the law across 50 states.

I think that ultimately the US will find a solution that is uniquely proper to American reality itself. Somewhere in all this the US will find its balance between the public and the private sector. Perhaps the sense of urgency comes from 2010, the years in which people born in 1945 turn 65 years old. Economists see this as the start of the baby boomer generation reaching retirement age, and the pressures on the healthcare and pension systems will be great. 2010-2020 will be the years that will define whether the private sector can truly cope with high demand for healthcare services being met at low, stable prices.

Artful Dodger: So why are you against the markets being opened up and more competition?

And as such, from what I have read.. it seems alot of lobbying is going on, and from the last time (in Clinton's presidency) healthcare reform was tried.... the lobbyists worked overtime to stop it and were paying off politicians (especially on the Republican side by the news) left right and centre.

Yes.. there is corruption in government and in business.

"It cost him nothing. He had some costs, but they were minimal."

It didn't cost him nothing then.

"And there are some health care companies that are not for profit. "

So was Help the aged back when it got exposed for swallowing about 75% of all the money donated in admin costs...

(V):  I agree with that statement.  Much of what is spewed by Beck, Limbaugh & their colleagues on right represent reckless & irresponsible speech.   Beck himself has stated he fantasized on his show about killing someone.  The statement was of course hypothetical but irresponsible.  

As for disturbed people going on shooting sprees from obsessing over this type of garbage, it has already happened.  Last year a man who walked into a Unitarian Church in Knoxville TN & opened fire.  He said he did it to kill "liberals" in the trenches.  The authorities found books & literature written by these "shock-jocks" on the right.   I happen to know some of the people affected.  So don't give me this crap about how they care only about policies.  No, they can't be directly blamed for such acts.  Ultimately, it was done by the individual.  But, these instigators, who are paid great sums of money to get people in a frenzy, can incite violence & they do!  We Americans need to be  a little more careful who we worship.

Ferris Bueller: This is what gets me.. it is endorsed. Fox knows that there is a small percentage of right wing psychopaths (just as Art says there is a loony left) who do not think. They've been conditioned into believing an ideology that is based on hate, fear and anger at anything that is perceived to threaten this ideology, and use the likes of Beck to say "I'm right.. this TV star says so, it's ok, to hate the Muslim, it's ok to hate liberals.. Beck says so"..

As such Fox cannot say they do not know there will be incidents, just as much as a 'rogue Muslim cleric cannot say he didn't know his words of hatred for the west will not inspire some psychotic person who's 'idol' is Islam and is too stupid to know right from wrong goes and tries to kill in the name of Allah.

We were lucky over here.. some white supremacist got drunk before bombing his targets and got stopped by the police and searched. He had two bombs on him he made in the bedroom he lived in at his parents house.

(V): you may want to double check this info...in order to sell insurance in the state of NY...an insurance company must have its home office in the state of New York.
I dont think this law stops them from selling outside of NY.

Last Thursday the UN Security Council adopted a resolution aiming to create a nuclear-free world. President Obama announced it at the UN Summit in New York.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kL98h6zebY&feature=fvw

This news went mostly unnoticed, even though they concern all of us, regardless of where we live or what political thinking we follow.

It seems to me like an extremely difficult thing to achieve. There would have to be something like the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in place, and it would require signing and ratification by all member states of the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty

http://www.ctbto.org/

At the present time Iran has signed the treaty but not ratified it. North Korea, Pakistan and India have not signed it. The Us and Israel have signed it, but not ratified it. China dn Russia have signed it and ratified it. It is meaningless since the treaty does not come into force until all member states both sign and ratify the treaty.

Barack Obama said during his electoral campaign that he would attempt to convince the Senate to ratify the treaty once he became elected.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-testing-is-an-acceptable-risk

I think it will be difficult for him to convince law makers and the Ameican public that ratifying the treaty is in the best interests of the US. I think the political sentiment is that the US needs to keep the option of testing open. Specially in light of the testing done during the Bush administration. Reliable bunker-busting nuclear missiles was one of the objectives in nuclear weapons research done by the US during the last 10 years.

Those countries (like Iran and North Korea) attempting to get nuclear weapons are likely to reject the treaty. So will countries that use nuclear weapons as a deterrent against their neighbors (Pakistan, India, Israel).

I think that if President Obama can convince the Senate, then the treaty will be more acceptable to many countries that are refusing to ratify the treaty. I would be curious to think whether any of you think we could achieve a nuclear-free world. What would it take? Should the nuclear superpowers make the first steps and solid commitments? Or should the countries with nuclear ambitions give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons first?

Übergeek 바둑이: I would be curious to think whether any of you think we could achieve a nuclear-free world. What would it take?

photon torpedoes...lol

Bwild: I don't know.... I'll have to check. But what I found is that there is a problem in that in some cases there is only one hospital available, and it appears certain companies like keeping it that way. I'm of the inclination that just like with our building industry, there is a long standing 'agreement' over areas of operation.

Bwild: I would have thought MOAB's had kinda made Nuke's partly redundant. Especially the tactical kind. That anyone using a nuke will be um .... um .... in severe trouble kinda makes them redundant.

M utually
A ssured
D estruction

(V): I'm guessing you've never seen Star Trek?

Bwild: Aye.. I've seen it... and avoid the darn repeats like the plague as so much repeating has been done.

They are actually getting to the stage of making effective energy weapons, the problem still is creating the ability to make a powerful enough surge!!

Bwild:

> Photon torpedoes

plus Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock and the Orion slave dancing girl

Übergeek 바둑이: It's just that they are using paradoxes to rewrite the story lines too much.

Dr Who and Torchwood are better

Übergeek 바둑이:  I think lobbying should be outlawed.  It's not always been allowed.  The government represents the people, not the corporations.  I think Unions ought to be banned from lobbying especially.   I quit the teacher's union because of their political action crap. 

My bottom line is this:  Fix what's broken.  Minimal government intervention.  Set high standards for qualifying for any public health care.  Focus on personal responsibility.  I grew up poor (relatively) and in a family of 9.  I put myself through school while married and with two kids.   I am not yet 60 and am debt free.  Completely.  Keep in mind Im a teacher.  I don't make much.   I don't accept the excuses I hear from others on how hard their lives are.  I grew up in the inner city.  There were gangs where I grew up.  I witnessed gang fights.  There were certain areas within walking distance to my home that we were told never to go.  I could have a thousand excuses why I need government help.   But I simply had a strong work ethic and believe that paying one's own way is right.  Sucking off others is wrong.   Many people who are for public health care are for it for one of two or three reasons:  It absolves them of personal responsibility to look out for others.   For politicans, who really don't give a rat's behind, it means votes, and for those who would benefit, it means they can continue being lazy excuse making do-nothings who think the world owes them.  Only a small percentage of people are actually entitled to help out of a real need.  The rest are lazy slobs.  

Ferris Bueller:  He fantasized about killing Michael Moore.  lol.  Who hasn't? 

(V):  You crack me up.  These arguments of yours are so lame and so old and so hasbeen it baffles me that you think there is any merit in them.  There are plenty of liberal organizations that partake in violence against both people and property.  Are you willing to blame the liberal establishment for these crimes?

How about rape?  Who do yo blame for that?  Sex in the City???

How lame.

Bwild: Only one possibility:  We blow up everybody else and then destroy our stockpile.  Otherwise, it's never gonna happen.

Artful Dodger: The nuclear waste of powerplants will pursuit generations, even following zivilisations. The final depots allready build turned out to be not very final, and nobody wants a final depot in it's neighbourhood, a endless problem. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reports talking about drug consume among workers in nuclear plants, this business is pure decadence. The newest generation of reactors gets build up in Finnland, and it's a strange awful mess, many objections, double of planed costs ect. (in Olkiluoto). A western companies builds up a "new" one in eastern Europe, the same type like in Chernobyl. This industry talks about a renaissance while many of the new power plants they talk about to illustrate this renaissance are construction cadavers. The recource uran is much shorter supply as oil and will get unpayable in 1 ore 2 decades. The environmental balance of nuclear power plants is very bad (mining of Uran and waste noone knows how to stock). The favoration of decadence over reason keeps power alternatives low, while the technique to awoid nuclear power plants is already here, on the market. Today you have lights using 3 Watt, the same light we used to use 60 Watt for few years ago and these examples are countless, like running a internet session with 10 Watt instead of 200, ever thought about running a fridge with water instead of electricity etc etc etc.

Nuclear power industry illustrates the decadence the best. One law of twisted human nature is squeezing the lemon till it's bitter end, like activating a granade but not wanting to throw it. This illustrates what I wrote a day two ago. The business model "nuclear power plant" is only possible because of corrupted politicians, it's the perversion of profit thinking, irresponsability at its worst, manipulation, corruption, decadence, lazyness, profiteering, collection of fists at latest.