>>>The trouble then is that the big networks will finally have real ratings data that can't be rigged so easily.
>>>
>>Doubtful.
>
>The present sampling system is under even more doubt.
>
Without a blatent invasion of our privacy there is no way to get accurrate information. Tivo has come under fire for tracking its viewers habits already. Of course that hasn't stopped the government or the phone or internet companies.

>I think the big obstacle would be getting it into any sales chain. You don't get to hear a lot about it, but it's quite hard to get into them, if any of the major manufacturers feels you're intruding into their shelf space. The reports on this are quite rare, though; last one I read five years ago or so.

Its not that difficult if you have a customer base. New products arrive on shelves every day. Besides, the internet has made it easier than ever to start selling your wares.

>>>> Unless someone is chronoligically ill or on expensive drugs, I suggest a high-deductable (catastrophic emergency) insurance plan. For yearly visits I suggest finding a private practice doctor that you like and just paying him out of pocket for each visit.
>>>
>>>Do you hear yourself? You already started listing cases, look for this if this, or else look for this if ... there's no comprehensive system. There's cases, plans, programs, but no system.
>>>
>>
>>Right. I don't want a "system". I like having choices.
>
>Do I hear an implied XOR here? Did I say I don't want choices? I said I want a system available to all no matter what. If you want more than that system can provide, you should have choices. Why not have both? Is that "no system system" of yours afraid of competition?

I love competition. The more the better. The problem with a government run system is that it isn't competing on its own. Everyone has to pay into the system whether they want to use it or not. Just like social security. The legislature won't even let us control 2% of our own funds. If the government wants to offer an alternative program that people can choose to participate in, I'm all for it. I just don't want to be forced to pay for it. If they offered a better plan I'd probably use it voluntarily.

>> As I get older my health care needs will change and I like having multiple options for dealing with those changes. I do not want a single, government-run health care plan that will limit my choices of doctors, hospitals, medications, procedures, etc. HMOs are bad enough.
>
>The health care system should provide basic care for all. At least it would be much cheaper than financing the paper-pushers in each of the HMOs et al, plus their fancy buildings, agents, security staff and other middlemen - as is proven by the health cost per capita in the rest of the developed world.

The rest of the world's costs are up there as well they're just paid by the government. Which taxes the people. The fact that the citizens don't pay it out of pocket doesn't mean they aren't paying for it.

>And let's not forget that infant mortality in the USA is worse than in Slovenia and two dozen other countries. This is a symptom of the basic prevention failing or being absent.

I agree that it is a problem but there are other factors besides medical care that contribute to the rate like substance abuse, smoking, poor nutrition and chronic illness. It is not as cut and dry as simply providing a single-payer health care system.

>>>IOW, a total smorgasboard of everything, and they're all primarily trying to make money on you, and give you health protection if they must or if they think you can take them out in court.
>>>
>>
>>Again you seem to have a problem with a business making money. I don't. In fact I want my insurance company to make money, that way I know they'll still be around if I have a crisis.
>
>Anyone who does an honest work should be paid for it, period. I have a problem when they're trying to increase their profit not by doing a better job, but by cutting the corners of the patients they're supposed to serve.

I believe they are doing both, increasing care through expanding bed capacity, hiring more doctors and specialists, etc. They are also cutting out costly overruns. There is clearly a balance there. Its not like they are arbitrarily cutting for the sake of the bottom line.

>They aren't serving the patients, but their stockholders - and that's where I do have a problem.

The stockholders are the owners. The company have an obligation to them as well as the patients.

>>>The American way of doing government is a real obstacle here - it can be done much more efficiently (take the example of just all of the rest of the developed world) and for less money per capita, but somehow this belief that whatever government does will be worse, cost more and take longer, becomes another self-fulfilling prophecy here.
>>
>>We believe it because of experience. The more the government gets involved the harder it becomes to get things done.
>
>And it never occurred to you that the reason for that is that there's something wrong in the way you do it? That it can be done better?

We agree it can be done better. Where we differ is the how. I believe that government needs to be starved of funding. Very few programs for it to oversee so that there is less to get their hands on. Less earmarks, less pork, less outright bribery. Let the private sector and market forces drive the costs down through competition.

>I think there's a substantial power pushing this belief that government can't do anything well and let's privatize everything, it'll be for the best. It surely will be for the best interests of those involved, and call me crazy and paranoid if you want, but I somehow doubt their sincerity.

The government does several things well, when they are focused on them. Infrastructure, military, police, fire...The trouble is that as the government gets involved in more aspects of our lives the less efficient it becomes and the opportunity for corruption rises. There is a balance that should be struck between government regulation (and the agencis that enforce it) and the private sector's pursuit of profit. I think we are out of balance in favor of regulation and that is driving costs away from market forces.

>>>>If there was a governmental system in place the same would be true. Except that the politicians would have control of even more money. Scary.
>
>At least these politicians are up for reelection every now and then. What recourse do you have against a HMO that your employer enrolls you into?

You do not have to participate in your employers HMO. You have a choice.

>And remember their lawyers are bigger than yours, and that you didn't really have the time to read all the small print (which you wouldn't understand anyway, because the intended meaning of the words may not equal the received meaning).

Their lawyers are not bigger than mine. :)

>> We have a government mandated "retirement" plan here also called Social Security. Originally designed to supplement retirement and the money was supposed to be kept seperate. HAHA! The money is in the general fund and being pillaged every year.
>
>It's duly replaced with federal bonds, from what I heard. Now the net worth of these bonds is really a question, since the signed entity is getting deeper in debt by the minute.

The main problem stems from its flawed design. Originally there were some 12-15 people paying for 1 person's SS. Now its like 2-1, and its getting worse because people are living longer and longer. Add in the influx of baby-boomers who are starting to retire and the system is in dire straits. If it isn't reformed it's going to require more and more outside funding as the ration moves in the other direction.

Of course it does nothing to talk about it because the largest active voting block in the country is over 55 and any politician that even talks of change is unelectable.

>>What do you want me to say? Bad people do bad things. Our jails are full of people who kill, steal, rape, etc and they knew the consequences beforehand.
>
>So what about the deterrent factor of the verdicts? Did the previous verdicts deter Merck from doing this?

Manson and Dahmer knew the consequences also. Bad people do bad things regardless of the consequences. You cannot legislate behavior, you can only hope that the consequences will prevent it from happening on a large scale.

>>>It's OK most of the time - provided they do produce what people need. It's when they do anything for profit, over dead bodies, that the system at least doesn't prevent sufficiently (and I may be inclined to think that the system is tolerating it more and more).
>>>
>>I would completely disagree. If anything the businesses are being regulated more each year.
>
>After they were heavily deregulated during Reagan's term. Now they have to put some of the checks and balances back.
>

Reagan's policies led to the greatest economic expansion in history. Not just for the US but worldwide.

>>I don't think you can unless I'm creating a nuisence. Which is what you would be doing if your blocking the entrance to a business.
>
>Which is what nobody's really doing anywhere I saw - people who engage in spontaneous conversation instinctively move a step or two aside so not to be in anybody's way (as I saw in Europe so many times), because "people are passing", not because "we're hurting a business".
>
>I guess this is a major cultural difference. Designated areas for this or that vs spontaneity.

Cultural or a difference in the countries. Here private property rights are taken as the backbone of our freedom. Without the right to own ones own property, freedom doesn't exist.

>>I don't know that its a bad thing, after all a great number of people are moving up not down. I just read a report that the number of millionaires has doubled in the last 10 years.
>
>Millionaires are middle class? C'mon - just the other day I've heard half an hour rant on the radio by someone important (pimping his book, probably) about how the median income has gone down significantly. So while the guys on the top are doing better and better, the median line is getting lower and lower.

More millionaires means that more people are moving up the economic chain as well as down.

>
>>>Ah, the lovely partial pregnancy... when they attack, they are warriors; when they're caught, they aren't. Nice gray area where the gov't can pick and choose which laws to apply and which not.
>>>
>>Spies and guerrilas have never been treated as soldiers, but they are still a part of a country's forces.
>
>So, it's a war except when it isn't, and it isn't a war except when it is. They are at war, but when they're captured they don't get any of POW status and no law applies to them;

They do not get POW status as they are not soldiers. I do agree that they need to be charged and tried.

>none of the occupying force's obligations by Geneva convention applies

The Geneva convention applies to soldiers not terrorists, insurgents nor spies.

>(look up Bremmer's orders) yet it's OK to have all the real and imaginary prerogatives of a commander-in-chief as if this was a real war... nice.

>>>So how come the previous governments weren't accused of cronyism?
>>
>>They were. I think the most famous one is JFK appointing his brother to attorney general.
>
>That's nepotism, but never mind. I'm talking about proportions and competency. How many of such cases per term?

Many and in each administration. Clinton fired how many members of the travel office to put in his own firm? He brought how many people with him from Arkansas to work in his administration?

It has been going on for as long as civilization has existed. People like to have their friends around.

>This administration seems to have replaced anyone competent with just about anyone who helped a lot in the elections. Just look at the Heckuva Brownie and his predecessor.
>

We disagree. Of course we disagree on Iraq so...

>>>How come INS took three weeks seven years ago to do something that takes months now? Has the human nature changed so quickly?
>>
>>Not sure to what you're referring, but I probably cound't answer anyhow. I have zero experience with INS.
>
>I had to get the visa four times - and the last time it took about three times longer and cost about as much more, while the actual work they had to do was far less (it was just the reissue). And it's not anything post-nine-eleven related, because only the first one was before that. I've also tracked similar cases among acquaintainces, and they all say that what once took two weeks now takse three months. Even my attorney told me so - and he was specialized for these cases.

I was right, I cannot offer anything here as I know zero about it.

>>There is a distinct lack of economic education in this country. People fall for it because they don't know any better.
>
>What education do you need? If you spend what you don't have, you'll have to borrow. When you borrow, they'll get your shirt. Period.

That would help but they don't even get that.

>>>>>I know. I read dailyKos, CrooksAndLiars et al.
>>
>>I hope you read national review also for a little balance. :)
>
>Does Harper's count? :)

The Wall Street Journal at least? ;)